While international human rights are not typically seen as directly applicable in ocean governance, they should be included and applied in the search for equity in a sustainable ocean economy. Human rights obligations apply not only within the territories of states, but also over an activity under the control or jurisdiction of states, including vessels fying the fag of a state and activities in the high seas or the Area under the control of states (Wenzel 2008).

A number of rights may be particularly relevant in the pursuit of ocean equity. First, the right to development, which calls for solidarity and uplifting the poor and marginalised, is directly related to the intragenerational equity described above. It is contained in, among other instruments, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Art. 22), the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (para. 10) and the 2000 Millennium Declaration (para. III). It can also be inferred from other instruments such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development. Second, the right to equality and nondiscrimination can further support fairness in an ocean governance context (Universal Declaration of Human Rights Art. 2, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Art. 2, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Arts. 2 and 26).

Some prohibited grounds of discrimination have also been the subject of specifc treaties, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. These rights could potentially be made applicable to, for example, fshing permits. While regional fsheries management organisations do not, typically, consider race and gender when establishing allowable catch requirements, national authorities should, in keeping with human rights standards, account for the needs of the most disadvantaged and marginalised.

Labour rights is one area in which the protection of human rights has been directly applied in ocean governance. Labour or employment rights are contained in, for example, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the right of 'just and favourable conditions of work' (Art. 7). The Maritime Labour Convention (Arts. III and IV) includes requirements for regular payment and processes to ensure fair wages (e.g., Regulation 2.2). The Work in Fishing Convention C188, adopted in 2007, aims to ensure that all fshers have decent working conditions on board fshing vessels.

One area with much room for improvement is the role of business in enhancing equity. While human rights obligations are binding on states, business entities have the greatest potential to impact human rights and the environment (Ratner 2007; Oyewande 2008). Business entities, including those fshing and mining in the ocean, do not have direct obligations under international law. This creates diffculties where business entities act in the territories of third states and areas beyond national jurisdiction (Duruigbo 2003; Muchlinski 2007). To address this issue, the obligations of states in human rights treaties to 'protect, respect and fulfl' have been interpreted as establishing a duty on the state to ensure that rights are protected in private relationships, including between corporations and other persons (Ruggie 2008), thus creating an indirect duty of 'non harm' on the corporations. Moreover, the United Nations is currently considering the possibility of a treaty to regulate the activities of multinational corporations that impact on the environment and the enjoyment of human rights (Meyer 2017).

#### **2.4 Case Studies of Hope and False Hope**

The following sections focus on concerns for ocean equity across a variety of ocean-related sectors and equity dimensions, including the distribution of burdens and benefts on the high seas, inequalities associated with infrastructure development and the role of transnational corporations in a sustainable ocean economy (see Table 13.1 for an overview). Although much of the scientifc work to date has revolved around gender equity and the rights of small-scale fsheries and coastal communities (Tables 13.1 and 13.2 and Appendix 1), there is increasing interest in engaging with inequalities in other areas.

#### **Table 13.1** Key points from case studies

*Note: The countries specifed in the table represent examples of places where inequities have been scientifcally studied. Some of these countries have recently invested in human, fnancial and/or technical capacity to address challenges identifed, but, at the time of publication of this blue paper, no peer-reviewed scientifc documentation was available that had assessed the effectiveness of such recent efforts. Details in Appendix 1*

#### **2.4.1 Equity and Sustainable (Small-Scale) Fisheries**

Small-scale fsheries support the majority of the world's fsherfolk (47 million women and men in developing countries alone) and utilise the least capital, fuel and technology (World Bank 2008, 2012; Schuhbauer et al. 2017; Zeller and Pauly 2019). While landing the bulk of catches for human consumption, large-scale industrialised feets, in contrast, are highly subsidised, employ relatively few fsherfolk and have high discard rates (World Bank 2008; Carvalho et al. 2011; Sumaila et al. 2016; Zeller and Pauly 2019). Large-scale industrial fsheries and associated value chains can undermine the catches, livelihoods and food security of smallscale fshers and coastal communities (De Schutter 2012; Gagern and van den Bergh 2013; Pauly et al. 2014). There is a risk that intensifcation of economic use of the ocean and coasts for mining, logging, infrastructure development, coastal tourism and aquaculture can reinforce the weak position and vulnerability of small-scale fshers (Bavinck et al. 2017, 2018; Carver 2019; Cohen et al. 2019).

Small-scale fshing communities, particularly indigenous and women subgroups, often have relatively limited political power compared to large-scale fsheries actors (Table 13.2). Small-scale fshers are at times depicted by policymakers as ignorant, ineffcient or environmentally destructive, leading to policies that target them with negative livelihood effects (Lowe 2013; Cohen et al. 2019). Blaming small-scale fsheries for problems often misses systemic inequalities that can be driving far more signifcant environmental degradation, including illegal fshing and corruption (Eder 2005; Fabinyi 2012; Li 2007; Segi 2014; Finkbeiner et al. 2017; Sumaila et al. 2017).

Inequities are apparent also within small-scale fshproducing communities. These are often structured along intersecting social categories such as wealth, gender, age, religion, migrant-status and ethnicity. Inequities in ocean resource benefts may reinforce existing inequities experienced by particular groups in access to healthcare, education and rights over land (Béné and Friend 2011; Jentoft and Eide 2011; Mills et al. 2011; Allison et al. 2012).

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF), adopted in 1995, is an important tool for fsheries sustainability and has advanced equity through development of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries (SSF) in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (FAO 2015). These guidelines are closely related to the Voluntary Guidelines for the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forestry in the Context of National Food Security (VGGTs). Both instruments are grounded in a human rights-based approach and specifcally include equity and equality among their guiding principles.

The SSF guidelines have been embraced by several regional organisations (TNI 2016): the Central America Fisheries and Aquaculture Organization, the Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic, the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, the African Union and the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. The General Fisheries Commission's 10-year Regional Plan of Action for Small-Scale Fisheries is expected to increase social equity within the fsheries sector in that region. A draft law in Costa Rica, aiming to overcome the voluntary nature of the SSF guidelines, will likely contribute to improvements in the equitable distribution of benefts.

More generally, the CCRF has also been integrated into national regulatory frameworks with technical guidance and voluntary guidelines aimed to facilitate its operationalisation. Examples of particular relevance to social equity include the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries in the FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, which specifcally encompasses improving human well-being and equity (FAO 2003). The FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries on the management of marine protected areas and fsheries aim at balancing environmental and social outcomes in a domain often dominated by conservation goals (Westlund et al. 2017).

Although an international framework of guidance is in place to support social equity in the fsheries sector, implementation often remains a challenge. Scientists, civil society organisations and social movements are analysing threats posed by ocean economy developments in terms of justice and equality (TBTI 2016) to understand how implementation can be accelerated.

#### **2.4.2 Gender-Transformative Approaches**

Signifcant efforts have been made to mainstream gender in fsheries policy and investments. These have mainly focused on visible gender gaps, such as gender imbalances in who accesses and participates in extension programs (Kleiber et al. 2017) and typically have consisted of 'accommodating' and 'gap-flling' approaches. For instance, in Bangladesh, women are targeted for capacity-building activities in ways that accommodate their practical needs (Choudhury et al. 2017; Behailu et al. 2019). Trainings may be held close to women's homes, at a time convenient for them, and the skill or technology transferred may feed into a livelihood option that can be performed at home. While socially acceptable, interventions that only build women's capacity, target women or deploy gender-responsive technologies at women have limited impact (Morgan et al. 2015; Farnworth et al. 2015; Behailu et al. 2018; Choudhury et al. 2017). Indeed, they fail to address underlying barriers that perpetuate gender inequities, including stereotypes, nonrecognition of women as fshers or contributors along the value chain, and harmful norms restricting men and women from engaging in and beneftting from activities equitably (Kantor et al. 2015; McDougall et al. 2015; Choudhury and McDougall 2019).

Gender-transformative approaches in natural resource management are meant to address these underlying normative barriers (Wong et al. 2019; Cole et al. 2018), yet their implementation in developing countries remains limited. In Indonesia, for example, despite women being reached by many project activities since 1998, only two projects (10%) applied a gender-transformative approach (Stacey et al. 2019). A case from Bangladesh (see Box 13.2) illustrates the potential of transformative approaches to catalyse greater development and gender outcomes. While focused on a freshwater context, the framework is likely also relevant for marine resources (see Promundo-AAS 2016; Cole et al. 2018). More generally, advancing public discussion of gender equality in fsheries and making progress in women's empowerment requires effective messaging and awareness, political and social will, and support from the government, NGOs and the private sector.

#### **Box 13.2: Transforming Underlying Gender Barriers in Bangladesh**

Introducing innovations, such as more intensive homestead-based pond polyculture that can provide nutrient-dense small fsh to low-income and coastal communities often struggling with nutrient defciencies, is a priority for Bangladesh's government, NGOs and international research for development. Interventions have commonly targeted and trained women, but because the latter were not given control over ponds, and because investments in ponds have largely depended on the support of male household members, women were not able to implement and optimise innovations (Morgan et al. 2015). Women were also reluctant to get into ponds for practical reasons (because their wet clothing is diffcult to dry).

The development of an affordable small-mesh gillnet that women could use from the pond banks did not resolve the problem, because women's use of such nets was constrained by gendered roles that see 'fshing' as a men's domain. Women therefore faced social repercussions for harvesting (Kruijssen et al. 2016), despite the strong nutritional need for fsh for families and children in this area (Bogard et al. 2015).

Building on pre-pilots (Farnworth et al. 2015; Kantor et al. 2015; McDougall et al. 2015), the gillnet intervention was redesigned to build commitments for family support for women as fshers (aquaculturalists) and innovators. The transformative measures involved spouses and more powerful household members in critical refection and dialogue (Promundo-AAS 2016) around gender dynamics ranging from intra-household gender power hierarchies to food distribution. Interventions also sought to discuss how current norms limited individual and family well-being and what steps could be taken collaboratively to shift gender relations. Women were also coached in self-confdence, negotiating skills and assertiveness. Results showed changed attitudes amongst men and women, enhanced collaboration among family members and greater acceptance of technology use by women.

Despite repression, by drawing strength and inspiration from their traditional identities and power within their society, women themselves can be agents of change. In British Columbia, First Nations Heiltsuk women drew on their traditional and contemporary roles as mothers, teachers, organisers and political leaders to oppose a controversial commercial herring (*Clupea pallasii pallasii*) sac-roe fshery. By taking on leadership roles, increasing social cohesion, facilitating information fow and engaging in critical negotiations, women demanded care over traditional marine resources for their children, culture and future generations and helped transform governance of herring on British Columbia's Central Coast (Harper et al. 2018). This example illustrates the importance of social equity and the potential strength of (indigenous) women as agents of change in fsheries governance. However, in many socio-political contexts gender dynamics limit women from exerting this level of leadership, voice and agency.

#### **2.4.3 Ocean-Based Infrastructure and Coastal Community Equality**

Activities in the ocean raise questions about how their costs and benefts are distributed among coastal communities. The onshore pollution effects of offshore accidents are well documented, including the Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon accident (Hayworth et al. 2011; Michel et al. 2013), the Erika disaster (Čović et al. 2013) and the recent Brazilian oil spill (Reuters 2019). Yet more enduring relationships between ocean industries, such as oil and gas and offshore renewable energy, and coastal communities also exist. In the United Kingdom, for example, a number of coastal communities have long-standing experience interacting with the offshore oil and gas industry, with new questions being asked about ocean-coastal connections as the number of offshore renewable energy developments increases.

Exploitation of oil and gas in the United Kingdom began in the 1970s and included the construction of onshore facilities to receive crude oil via pipeline, ahead of onward transportation by tankers at the Sullom Voe Terminal in the Shetland Islands. The project remains one of the largest construction sites in Europe and the largest oil terminal ever built at once (Carr and Williamson 1982). At its peak, it processed over 1.5 million barrels of oil a day (Sullom Voe terminal 2018). At the time the terminal was being proposed, the local authority negotiated a compensatory agreement to account for the terminal's negative impacts on Shetland during the course of activities. Compensation was not a one-off payment but a disbursement placed into a trust and linked to activity levels until 2000, after which the money was invested on the stock exchange and in local subsidiary companies (Morgan 2009). The funds are governed by the Shetland Charitable Trust. Financial fows have been substantial and have supported onshore benefts through important investments in community assets, such as sports and cultural venues as well as a district heating scheme. In 2018, closing reserves topped £300 million (Sullom Voe terminal 2018). In this case, local and national governance processes support a third-sector organisation (the charity) to mediate the impact of corporate activity. The benefciaries of this activity are local community members.

There are also examples of approaches where the potential for unequal experiences of the costs and benefts of development are addressed through formal sharing of benefts (rather than compensation for negative impacts). The idea of 'community beneft' payments frst emerged in the onshore renewable energy sector, whereby communities located near renewable assets receive annual payments, often linked to energy production capacity or performance, as part of sharing the benefts of the energy scheme (Kerr et al. 2017; Rudolph et al. 2014; SSE 2019). Community beneft payments are in addition to any positive supply chain effects. Although not mandated by law, on-land community beneft packages have developed through the dynamic interplay between energy developers and communities, under the watchful eyes of governments. The rationale behind community beneft payments is 'driven by a desire to equitably share the benefts gained by harnessing a national natural resource' (Scottish Government 2018, 7). In the United Kingdom, if and how such principles might apply to offshore energy developments is a matter of ongoing consultation.

Arrangements therefore exist that consider the distribution of costs and benefts of ocean-based developments affecting coastal communities. There is also an opportunity to transfer learning from experiences of land-based developments, especially in the context of renewable energy, to ocean-based settings. The particular set of arrangements made will vary depending on the location of developments, the governance context and the power that communities have in their interactions with corporations. Coastal communities are often economically vulnerable and fnancially subject to fuctuations in the resources they depend upon. Addressing this vulnerability will enhance the equalities profle of the sustainable ocean economy. The two examples above focus on a country with institutional capacity to ensure that development is equitable; regions and countries exposed to oceanrelated developments where this may be lacking will need support to avoid inequitable outcomes.

#### **2.4.4 Equity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction**

Discussions of equity frequently centre on communities, local resource users, traditional knowledge and associated governance and regulatory regimes. The majority of the ocean, however, is more than 200 nautical miles (370 km) from national coastlines, and thus remarkably remote from the daily lives of most people. Indeed, marine 'areas beyond national jurisdiction' (ABNJs) account for some 64% of the ocean. A growing body of research underscores the degree of ecological connectivity between ABNJs and coastal communities, and their importance for the functioning of the biosphere (Popova et al. 2019; Ramesh et al. 2019; Cheung et al. 2019). The life cycles of whales, sharks, seabirds, turtles and tuna species, as well as microorganisms and all species with a pelagic larval development or adult stage, crisscross ABNJs and national jurisdictions (Block et al. 2011; Bierne et al. 2016).

Among the industries active in ABNJs, the fshing industry draws a substantial proportion of the questions about justice, fairness and equity. Fisheries in ABNJs are heavily subsidised, and an estimated 54% of current high-seas fshing grounds would be unproftable if these subsidies were removed (Sala et al. 2018). Three species account for 42% of the fsh caught in ABNJs: skipjack (*Katsuwonus pelamis*), yellowfn (*Thunnus albacares*) and bigeye tuna (*Thunnus obesus*) (Schiller et al. 2018). All three move across vast ocean territories and in and out of national jurisdictions. Several Pacifc atoll countries and territories (Kiribati, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands and Tokelau) are extraordinarily dependent on the access fees that they receive from distant water-fshing nations (DWFNs) who fsh for tuna in their EEZs. These fees contributed 60–98% of all (non-aid) government revenue in 2016 (FFA 2017). In a number of countries, tuna caught within their EEZs also play a crucial nutritional role (Bell et al. 2018, 2019; Yadav et al. 2019). In many low-income, food-defcit countries, fsh is a key source of micronutrients crucial for human health, and nutritionally rich alternatives are not readily available (Golden et al. 2016; Hicks et al. 2019). Poor governance on the high seas and mismanagement of fsheries can therefore result in not only economic losses for global seafood operations but also negative health outcomes and loss of livelihoods in coastal communities.

While the UN Fish Stocks Agreement requires that conservation and management measures for fsheries targeting highly migratory species such as tuna not disproportionately penalise developing states, fulflling this obligation has been diffcult (Hanich et al. 2015). Addressing these governance challenges requires encouraging the development of, for instance, applied research methodologies that can contribute to practical governance solutions that resolve or mitigate conservation burden obstacles and concerns in transboundary fsheries (see FERN 2019; Hanich et al. 2015).

Scientifc exploration of ABNJs has yielded deeper insights into life in extreme environments of the deep and open ocean, including hydrothermal vent systems. New techniques have resulted in a rapid fall in the cost of genetic sequencing of collected organisms, supporting the exponential growth of public repositories of genetic sequence data (Laird and Wynberg 2018; see also Blasiak et al. Blue Paper: 'The Ocean Genome: Conservation and the Fair, Equitable and Sustainable Use of Marine Genetic Resources'). While the number of commercial applications is clearly accelerating (Arrieta et al. 2010; Blasiak et al. 2018b), the marine biotechnology industry is highly concentrated in a handful of countries. In 2011, ten countries owned 90% of patent claims; 7 years later the same countries own 98% of patent claims (Arnaud-Haond et al. 2011; Blasiak et al. 2018b). Absence of requirements for sample origin data, or even of taxonomic information in patent flings, makes it virtually impossible to determine which of these are associated with genes collected in ABNJs (Arnaud-Haond et al. 2011; Blasiak et al. 2019).

Scientifc advances in the biotechnology and data analytics sector have consistently and dramatically outpaced the development of appropriate regulatory policy (Wynberg and Laird 2018). Publicly accessible open-access databases are one of the cornerstones of capacity-building and should result in a more equitable system of access to and sharing of knowledge. By themselves, however, they do not solve the problem of limited scientifc capacity to access and use genetic resources from ABNJs (UNESCO 2017; Salpin et al. 2018), or to use (digital sequence) information. Hence, many developing states cannot explore commercially valuable potential benefts from open access information on the sole basis of information-sharing through open access databases. In fact, by itself, this needed step does not obviate the need for capacity-building in scientifc disciplines (e.g., molecular biology), and research infrastructure– the main drivers of inequalities (Arnaud-Haond et al. 2011).

Operationalising equity commitments in the SDGs with regard to ABNJs has proven challenging. In the context of the ongoing negotiations for an international legally binding instrument under UNCLOS on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of ABNJs, states have an opportunity to reshape activity in these areas 1 . However, least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS) have been underrepresented in the negotiations around biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) and face technical and legal capacity constraints (Blasiak et al. 2016, 2017a), raising questions about equity in the context of the negotiations. Capacity-building has been seen as one vehicle to move towards greater equity. A voluntary fund was established by the UN Division for Ocean Affaires and the Law of the Sea (UNDOALOS) to help LDCs, SIDS and landlocked developing countries participate in the BBNJ negotiations. If the BBNJ agreement is to be implemented and equitable outcomes achieved, strong and sustained mechanisms for capacity-building and technology transfer at global, regional and national scales will be crucial (Minas 2018). Building on the unqualifed capacity-building and technology transfer commitments in the SDGs, negotiators should consider developing a capacity-building and technology transfer regime without the qualifers contained in UNCLOS. One possibility to consider, among others, is a capacity-building and technology-transfer fund resourced from assessed contributions.

#### **2.4.5 Can corporate Actors Promote Equity?**

The increasing power and infuence of transnational corporations has attracted scientifc attention to their activities and agency (Dauvergne and Lister 2012; Griffn 2017). Historical analysis of corporate engagement in policy development suggests that businesses rarely play a progressive and ambitious role in sustainability efforts; in fact, the opposite is true (Clapp and Fuchs 2009; Oreskes and Conway 2011; Murphy et al. 2012). Where regulations exist, particularly in places with limited capacity, companies can incentivise compliance, through voluntary reporting, naming and shaming, or enforcement activities themselves (e.g., as observed in efforts to reduce illegal fshing in the Southern Ocean: Österblom and Bodin 2012).

Corporate engagement in, and reporting of, sustainability has generated mixed results, ranging from 'greenwashing' to substantial reductions in environmental impacts (Folke et al. 2019). A wide range of voluntary environmental programs (Appendix 2) have engaged multiple ocean-based industries in sustainability. These programs vary in their membership standards, compliance mechanisms, focus and effectiveness. While most focus on environmental and legal concerns rather than equity, these initiatives indicate that platforms exist for engaging corporations in equity. The UN Global Compact (n.d.) represents an important platform for corporate sustainability, with its 10 principles focusing on human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption.

Whereas ecosystem sustainability is evidently important for corporations whose activities depend on a functioning planet, the case for equity is not as straightforward. What would the incentives be for corporations to share, or give up, some of their powers? Why would a corporation want to pay more taxes or engage in other forms of beneft-sharing mechanisms? Increased attention to global inequalities, in science, among policymakers, and within established, mainstream economic institutions indicates that addressing inequality is likely to be an important aspect of major corporations' future legitimacy and their continued license to operate.

Identifying the relevant companies, where they are operating and what their associated impacts are is a foundation for action. Companies can demonstrate leadership through both better practice and reporting, as well as through active engagement with policymakers for an improved focus on equity. Greater attention to both human rights and the environment by legislators, combined with improved corporate reporting and increased transparency in global supply chains, is incentivising corporations to operate responsibly (Folke et al. 2019). Recent engagement with representatives from 10 of the largest seafood sector companies through the Seafood Business for Ocean Stewardship (SeaBOS) initiative is an example of sciencebusiness collaboration in this domain (Österblom et al. 2017). The exposure of slavery and human rights abuses in seafood production (Mendoza et al. 2016; Kittinger et al. 2017) is one reason for increased corporate engagement in sustainability associated with seafood, as reputational risks are incentivising companies to 'do the right thing' (Lubchenco et al. 2016).

Owners, banks, investors and shareholders are able to infuence companies to take on a larger responsibility for sustainability and equity. Improved legislation and consumer demands, combined with economic incentives, can stimulate corporations to adopt and integrate environmental and social responsibility (Folke et al. 2019; Jouffray et al. 2019).

<sup>1</sup>The "negotiations shall address the topics identifed in the package agreed in 2011, namely, the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, in particular, together and as a whole, marine genetic resources, including questions on the sharing of benefts, measures such as area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, environmental impact assessments and capacity- building and the transfer of marine technology" (UNGA 2017).

#### **2.5 Equity and Climate Change**

The above case studies showcase the possibilities and barriers associated with promoting more equal distribution of access to, and benefts from, goods and services in a sustainable ocean economy. Current trajectories of global change (IPCC 2019) and associated risks of confict among resource users (Pinsky et al. 2018; Spijkers et al. 2019) under future conditions further suggest that shifting towards more equitable and inclusive resource use and access will be diffcult. Equity approaches are supported in the Paris Agreement. Yet national targets are currently insuffcient to meet the 2 °C warming target, with additional commitments needed by the G8 and China.

Climate change is projected to disproportionally affect ecosystems and communities in some of the least developed countries, particularly SIDS (Campbell and Barnett 2010; Sovacool et al. 2015; Hallegatte et al. 2016; Burke et al. 2015; Diffenbaugh and Burke 2019), with the potential to reverse signifcant development gains. Climate change in the poorest countries is more than 90% likely to have resulted in decreased economic output, whereas the effect is less pronounced in developed nations (Diffenbaugh and Burke 2019). Inequality will cause disadvantaged groups, especially women, girls and indigenous communities, to suffer disproportionately from the adverse effects of climate change, deepening existing social inequalities (Althor et al. 2016; Islam and Winkel 2017), possibly leading to unrest and severe social disruption (see Gaines et al. Blue Paper: 'The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy').

The rise in developing nations' inequality is due not only to projected climatological changes but also to the sensitivity of coastal communities to shifts in the distribution and abundance of fsh stocks, crucial for livelihoods and nutrition (Blasiak et al. 2017b). This accentuated sensitivity is coupled with comparatively low levels of adaptive capacity, as remote coastal communities often lack the connectivity to urban and peri-urban areas where greater access to education, health services and alternative livelihoods could buffer negative impacts (Cinner et al. 2018).

Some researchers are suggesting that support be provided to countries projected to experience high levels of impact and greater fnancial cost in terms of lost benefts and opportunities as well as more extensive adaptation measures (Wolff et al. 2015). Specifcally, international adaptation funds, such as the Green Climate Fund, could be determined and disbursed to be commensurate with impacts to the country's ecosystem, and a metric of equity could be included within a vulnerability framework (Wolff et al. 2015). Further analyses and mechanisms that systematically consider 'equity' to understand the impact of climate policies are needed to inform efforts to achieve adequate and fair climate action for present and future generations (Klinsky et al. 2017). Addressing equity is increasingly recognised as an important mechanism to develop more effective solutions, support buyin to climate change policies, and improve adaptive capacity and wholesale system transformation to create climate resilience (see Gaines et al. Blue Paper: 'The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy').

Climate scientists, economists and energy systems modellers have developed a range of storylines that examine how society, demographics and economics might change over the next century. These descriptive storylines are collectively known as shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) (Riahi et al. 2017) and explore fve trajectories that the world could take based on contrasting societal choices—including economic growth, education, urbanisation and the rate of technological development (Table 13.3).

From an equity perspective, SSP1 (Sustainability) and SSP4 (Inequality) represent two extremes. In one possible future (SSP1), an emphasis is placed on improving management of the global commons and investing in health services and education. Consequently, SSP1 leads to a world in which inequality declines both across and within countries and where greater emphasis is placed on human well-being than on economic growth (O'Neill et al. 2017). By contrast, SSP4 is characterised by large, unequal investments in human capital, which together with increasing disparities in economic opportunity and political power increase stratifcation within and across countries, as a growing majority of the world's resources and trade are controlled by a small group of global elites (O'Neill et al. 2017). In this 'Fortress World', societies grow increasingly fragmented and investments in social and environmental policies are focused on the richest areas (Calvin et al. 2017). Recent years have seen politicians in some of the world's most powerful economies adopting increasingly protectionist or even xenophobic attitudes that align with the narrative of the 'Fortress World' of SSP4.

The narrative of a burgeoning ocean economy suggests an opportunity to align more closely with an equitable future development trajectory (SSP1). Such a scenario is consistent with promoting and supporting international cooperation on climate change mitigation, shown to be critical to lowering emissions. Indeed, recent modelling work found that in scenarios in which individual nations undertake selfserving policies, global cumulative CO2 emissions are twice those of more cooperative scenarios (Mi et al. 2019). Being able to participate competitively in emerging ocean-based industries requires adequate capacity and research that follows the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) data principles (Wilkinson et al. 2016). Researchers and entrepreneurs in low- and middle-income countries are still likely to face an uphill battle to secure fnancing, market access and highly trained collaborators. Capacity-building and provision of funds remains a ubiquitous target and prior-

#### **Table 13.3** Summary of SSP narratives

Source: Riahi et al. (2017)

ity in international agendas and frameworks, with a continuous lineage from Part XIV of UNCLOS on the development and transfer of marine technology to the 2030 Agenda and 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

#### **2.6 Summary of Findings**

Inequity is a systemic feature of the ocean economy. Lack of fairness is embedded in existing political and economic systems, and is the result of historical legacies and existing norms. There are, however, multiple ways to promote and advance equity—inequity can be addressed with directed policies and practices that explicitly refect on and address existing approaches. An increased understanding of the intertwined dynamics of sustainability and equity shows that addressing equity is good for economic growth, policy legitimacy, social stability and sustainability. A failure to address equity risks accelerating social tension and eroding credibility in blue growth agendas, while also increasing reputational risks for corporations and trust in existing development approaches. Inequity is also increasing vulnerabilities to climate change. Although legal frameworks partially exist to support equity, they are not suffciently developed. In practice, ocean policies are largely equity-blind, contributing to current patterns of inequity (Fig. 13.3). The presented case studies identify current barriers to the implementation of equitable principles across ocean-based sectors as well as illustrate successful measures in and developments towards achieving greater fairness.

People will increasingly turn to the ocean to meet their food, nutrition, livelihood and energy needs. Shifting the current trajectory of persistent and increasing inequities will require strong leadership and intentional and long-term planning that starts with a clear commitment to equity. Achieving true equity will only be possible if inclusive consideration is given to all uses and value systems and if destructive or degrading activities are halted (Agardy 2016). Climate

**Fig. 13.3** Differences between equity-blind and equity-activating policies and practice

change projections indicate increasing impacts on already vulnerable nations and urgently demand that justice be considered in all sectors, at all political levels, and that policies to increase equity be urgently implemented.

#### **3 Opportunities for Action**

We outline opportunities for action, for policy development, business leadership and civil society. These range from the essentials (safeguards, or no-regrets, policies), to the more ambitious (mainstreaming approaches), to transformative approaches (see also Swilling et al. Blue Paper: 'The Transformation to a Sustainable Ocean: A Systems Transition Perspective') aimed at ensuring a fair, equitable, inclusive and sustainable approach to ocean-based development and protection (Table 13.4). These opportunities for action represent reinforcing levels of ambition that acknowledge 'the unique vulnerability and capacity challenges faced particularly by least developed, small coastal and island states, and landlocked states, and therefore the importance of [international] cooperation' (Commonwealth Secretariat 2018, p. 5).

Critical to achieving equity is access to information, promotion of environmental literacy, and engagement, coordination and collaboration across diverse actors, with different skills, capacities and powers. Building local capacity is fundamental to achieving equity and includes human (e.g., skills, education), social (e.g., connections, organisations), fnancial (e.g., access to capital) and physical (e.g., infra-

**Table 13.4** Overview of opportunities for action for achieving equity in a sustainable ocean economy

structure, transportation) assets (Sen 1992; Nussbaum 2011; Bennett et al. 2018).

#### **3.1 Safeguards: No Regrets**

When governments and agencies engage in development activities, such as foreign direct investment, offshore energy and allocating of access programs, equity should be a crosscutting concern. This is equally true for conservation initiatives, such as the identifcation of marine protected areas' location, or protecting individual species. Governments should invest in dialogue, capacity-building, education and training programs for women, girls, boys and men, combined with data collection and monitoring of equity. Tackling corruption and tax evasion is important to advancing ocean equity. Corporations, scientists and science funders also have a role to play in advancing equity safeguards.

#### **3.1.1 Consider the Social Context and Engage Diverse Actors in Decision-Making**

Development activities and conservation initiatives should engage and include developing states and local populations in decision-making processes. Women, indigenous groups, individuals with disabilities, and other minorities are key in these processes even when they are not harvesting resources themselves or part of the market chain. Context, values and cultures infuence the adoption rate and effectiveness of implemented measures. Thus, activities that work in one community or country may not work in another. Failure to consider context (socioeconomic, political, cultural or ecological) often represents a missed opportunity, is ineffcient, and can be counterproductive (see also Gaines et al. Blue Paper: 'The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy').

#### **3.1.2 Recognise the Rights and Needs of Women, Individuals with Disabilities, Small-Scale Fishers, Indigenous and Other Minority Groups**

Many groups are marginalised from decision-making processes but rely on ocean resources and play a critical, but overlooked, role in the ocean economy. Recognising their roles, strengths, interests and responsibilities and lifting existing access barriers will engage new groups of leaders, negotiators, decision-makers and entrepreneurs. This will alleviate poverty, strengthen food security, reinforce adaptive capacities and increase development opportunities, in addition to stimulating new mind-sets and innovation. Steps taken towards implementing gender equality considerations, for example, need to be taken in conjunction with action (e.g., education) to address systemic hurdles limiting vulnerable groups from accessing and beneftting from the ocean equitably. A 'gender lens' in all sustainable ocean economy development programs will generate economic opportunities for women, empower them and provide opportunities to engage in decision-making and leadership (Williams et al. 2012; see also USAID 2019 and Barclay et al. 2019 for how to effectively integrate gender considerations in a fshery policy context).

504

#### **3.1.3 Protect Human Rights and the Rights of Indigenous Groups**

At the very least, sustainable ocean development must 'do no harm'. Development activities must protect fundamental human rights, paying particular attention to indigenous rights and workers' rights, and ensuring that supply chains are free from unsafe working conditions, child labour and slavery (Kittinger et al. 2017; Teh et al. 2019).

#### **3.1.4 Address Corruption and Tax Evasion**

Corruption, environmental crime and tax evasion represent severe threats to the effectiveness of resource management and perpetuate as well as accentuate inequities in access to resources and benefts derived from them (Le Billon 2014). Corruption can be so ingrained that resource users will practice it without realizing it. Understanding and addressing corruption and other crimes requires education, regulations and enforcement. Systemic corruption is best seen as a collective action problem (Ostrom 1998; Le Billon 2014). Ending it may require transformational change in institutions (see Diamond 2008; and Swilling et al. Blue Paper: 'The Transformation to a Sustainable Ocean: A Systems Transition Perspective'). Identifying who engages in corruption and for what reasons frst requires identifying how to incentivise compliance (Sundström 2012; Williams and Le Billon 2017). Leaders in policy, business and practice should lead by example and be role models (Persson et al. 2013).

#### **3.2 Mainstreaming Equity: Doing What's Right**

Systematically addressing issues of inequity needs to be mainstreamed into development, management and conservation interventions at all scales, from local marine protected areas to global treaty negotiations on ocean governance. As new treaties are being negotiated, active steps need to be taken to ensure that all states and international organisations have the necessary capacity and sense of responsibility to safeguard equity, irrespective of policy positions or fnancial resources. In addition, analyses and estimates of the economic consequences of unmanaged development in the ocean need to be improved upon and communicated.

#### **3.2.1 Recognise, Protect and Operationalise Equity and Access Rights**

The provision of access to local resources is imperative for the establishment of equality and equity at community levels (WRI et al. 2005). Equity and access rights are already enshrined in conventions, international agreements and policies, but they are insuffciently operationalised (see Sect. 2.3). Restricted and unequal access to local ecosystems and resources constitutes a barrier that makes it more diffcult for vulnerable groups, such as the poor, to improve their conditions (Bennett et al. 2018; Cisneros-Montemayor et al. 2016; Haider et al. 2018). Access to local ecosystems has to be informed by customs and traditions, grounded in both formal and informal institutions, but it needs to also refect current scientifc knowledge.

#### **3.2.2 Build Local Capacity to Establish Equality of Opportunity**

The ability of coastal populations and coastal island and developing nations to beneft from ocean resources and development depends on their capacity to do so—in other words, equality of beneft requires equality of opportunity. Capacity is provided by human (e.g., skills, education), social (e.g., connections, organisations), fnancial (e.g., access to capital) and physical (e.g., infrastructure, transportation) assets (Sen 1992; Nussbaum 2011; Bennett et al. 2018). Enhancing the commitment to capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology, including through strengthening existing legal frameworks, constitutes an important priority. Access to low-cost and accessible technologies that support the SDGs represents a signifcant and increasingly relevant mechanism for developing adequate capacity (Meikle and Sugden 2015; see also Leap et al. Blue Paper, 'Technology, Data and New Models for Sustainably Managing Ocean Resources', on, for instance, the risk of widening the gap if equitable development and access are not considered). Local ownership of businesses that harvest ocean resources and of businesses that provide labour, services, goods or supplies can increase local beneft from economic development (Bennett et al. 2019b).

#### **3.2.3 Understand Social-Ecological Causality, Assign Responsibility and Secure Equitable Distribution of Benefts**

Development opportunities in ocean environments can entail social gains and harms. Some progress has been made in understanding and monitoring ecological harms, such as overfshing or eutrophication, and how these impact people. However, more knowledge needs to be gained about how ocean-based economic development can produce both direct and indirect social benefts and harms. Understanding causality in ocean environments is important to assigning responsibility and liability and securing an equitable distribution of social gains and avoidance of harms. Economic instruments such as taxes and fees need to be leveraged to internalise environmental and social benefts, costs and risks to society (WWF 2018).

*a. Such as by applying the polluter-pays principle, through the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea.*

#### **3.2.4 Demand, Require and Stimulate Responsible Business Practices**

Ocean industries derive substantial wealth and income from ocean environments. However, like most industries, they operate with limited transparency, which hinders the monitoring of their impact on society and ecological well-being, and thus the granting of a social license to operate. Incentives that shape a positive competitive environment can encourage industry to adopt corporate social responsibility practices to preserve their social license to operate (McGee 2013; Aguilera et al. 2007). Increased transparency will stimulate the private sector to respect and advance ocean equity and stewardship, while also encouraging learning across corporations.

#### **3.3 Transformative Approaches: The Bold Policies**

Discussions of systemic change to the global economy are no longer unusual (Jackson 2009; Hickel and Kallis 2019; Hadjmichael 2018; IPBES 2019). An acceleration of the ocean economy, along current trajectories, will continue to deliver the greatest benefts to a small subset of high-income countries, corporations and individuals. The scientifc literature is increasingly exploring purposeful and meaningful steps to change course. Allocation of rights (including property rights for fsheries, offshore wind and aquaculture) and development of new knowledge and technologies are often regarded as necessary to facilitate environmental sustainability and economic viability, but they also risk reinforcing existing power structures and limiting the development of low- to middle-income regions. Given the global nature of the ocean, the scale of the challenges and the slow pace of international policy development, immediate and concrete steps are needed to develop and evaluate alternative approaches to economic growth and allocation of social, economic and technological capital (Raworth 2017b). Transformative approaches require redistribution of power and resources to improve longer-term equity perceptions and outcomes. Limits on growth, and even degrowth, of some sectors may need to be considered. Changes to the status quo will not be easy, but—as this Blue Paper has illustrated they could substantially advance progress towards the SDGs.

#### **3.3.1 Create a Shared Ocean Economy that Facilitates Redistribution of Wealth and Benefts**

The ocean's global nature and the current unequitable distribution of access, benefts and negative impacts from ocean sectors requires bolder approaches. If such approaches are not taken, there is a real risk that the legitimacy of the current ocean policy agenda will be substantially eroded. Current ocean-related fund allocations from high-income countries to middle- and low-income ones are primarily handled through bilateral and multilateral offcial development aid (ODA) fnancial fows. While the source of many positive impacts, these allocations are dwarfed by the size of the ocean economy. Just 1% of the global ocean economy represents US \$15 billion per year generated from the world's ocean and coasts (OECD 2016). New ways of thinking, creative policies and accounting mechanisms that internalise externalities and include long-term economic and environmental considerations, and the use of progressive and affordable technologies are needed to facilitate a redistribution of wealth and benefts from the ocean economy.

#### **3.3.2 Democratise Ocean Knowledge**

Knowledge is power, and ocean knowledge is primarily generated in high-income countries. The current scientifc understanding of the ocean and its associated industries, technologies and impacts is not well-suited to addressing issues of global ocean equity. Greater attention is needed to democratise knowledge, train international researchers (in social and transdisciplinary science) and document how benefts of the ocean and ocean-related knowledge fow to different groups (see also Fenichel et al. Blue Paper: 'National Accounting for the Ocean and Ocean Economy'). Knowledge exchange, coproduction and transfer (Pohl et al. 2010) can be stimulated by cross-regional exchanges to compare lessons learned and the benefts of diverse approaches, cultures, values and understanding. Programs of this nature should aim to modify academic incentives that militate against equitable knowledge production and sharing (e.g., the emphasis on publishing and barriers to open-access work). It should value and promote effective and equitable partnerships with scientifc researchers in low- and middle-income countries. Governments, scientists and communities should make concerted efforts to co-develop mechanisms for identifying, considering and expressing benefts gained from the ocean so that these can be integrated into development policies across scales.

#### **3.3.3 Create Inclusive Governance Processes at All Scales**

*Governance* refers to who makes decisions and how decisions are made, which can signifcantly impact both what management actions are taken and to what effect. In terms of the blue economy, governance can impact 'how the ocean will be developed and by whom, how and to whom benefts will be distributed, how harms will be minimised and who will bear responsibility for environmental and social outcomes' (Bennett et al. 2019b, p. 2). In short, equity can depend on governance, and creative processes can be developed to incorporate local voices and visions into plans for the ocean economy. Many successful marine governance initiatives in the developing world are based on grassroots efforts. The FAO Small-Scale Fisheries guidelines is an example of a bottom-up initiative that resulted in a set of broad-scale instruments aimed at all actors striving to secure sustainable small-scale fsheries, end hunger and poverty, as well as strengthen human rights.

#### **3.3.4 Place Limits on Growth and Consider Degrowth Within the Capacity of the Biosphere**

There are numerous examples around the world where economic development activities have produced or are producing ecological and/or social impacts that could be deemed to have gone beyond acceptable thresholds. Some examples include oil development in Nigeria or Venezuela and overfshing in Mauritania or Senegal (Belhabib et al. 2016; Doumbouya et al. 2017). When thresholds are being exceeded, limiting growth or even degrowing the ocean economy to bring it in line with the capacity of the biosphere may be an obvious alternative. In this context, 'degrowth' means scaling back overexploitation that gives the illusion of what is in fact merely temporary growth and ultimately disastrously exhausts natural capital. Given the increasing debate about inequities, governments, corporations and scientists should consider alternative approaches to the ocean economy based on collaborative and equitable approaches that make well-being, livelihoods and natural resource maintenance their primary goals (Kostakis and Bauwens 2014).

#### **4 Conclusions**

This Blue Paper has illustrated that access to ocean resources and benefts is distributed inequitably, as is exposure to harms, resulting in negative effects on the environment and human well-being. Challenging this inequality directly threatens powerful interests that beneft from existing arrangements. However, inequality is increasingly endangering ecological sustainability, economic development and longer-term political and social stability. Increased scientifc attention to inequality is starting to shape debates associated with the ocean. We argue that addressing issues of equity is critical to a sustainable ocean economy. We provide a set of complementary reinforcing opportunities for action, from the simple to the transformative. These opportunities range from activities that aim to recognise, identify, document and report, as well as to promote, respect, clarify, showcase, build, create or facilitate. The opportunities include assigning and demanding responsibilities, piloting, implementing and enforcing existing and novel policies, and even rethinking existing growth paradigms. Combined, they aim to overcome the existing general policy blindness to equity and have an ambition to effectively support a sustainable and just ocean economy.

**Acknowledgements** The authors thank the paper's technical reviewers, Meryl Williams, Mads Barbesgaard and Elisa Morgera, as well as its arbiter, Nicola Frost, who all provided helpful technical comments. The authors also thank the World Resources Institute for providing support as the Ocean Panel Secretariat.

While our colleagues were very generous with their time and input, this report refects the views of the authors alone. The authors thank Alex Martin for copyediting and Jen Lockard for design.

#### **Appendix 1: Inequities Associated with Small-Scale Fisheries**

#### **Inequity of Benefts**

Inequalities in wealth shape the distribution of benefts from ocean resources for small-scale fshers at multiple scales. Many small-scale fshing households in Kenya and the Philippines, for instance, are enmeshed in structural inequality along value chains (Knudsen 2016; Wamukota 2009; Rosales et al. 2017). Coastal households specialised in fshing cannot compete with richer, more powerful fshers with better gear and the capacity to bribe local offcials (Fabinyi 2012). Consequently, coastal households may depend on unequal trading relationships (Crona et al. 2016) and tend to sell the best-quality fsh, consuming the lower-quality ones (Wamukota 2009; Hicks et al. 2019). Small-scale fshers often receive a relatively small proportion of the value of their catch (Rosales et al. 2017), especially when compared to prices associated with luxury consumption (Trinidad et al. 2014; Purcell et al. 2017). Meanwhile, small-scale fshers may be the most vulnerable to the loss or degradation of marine resources (Crona et al. 2015; Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. 2018).

#### **Invisible Gendered Inequities**

Women's contributions in fsheries are often overlooked, underestimated and/or undervalued, often resulting in women's marginalisation in the management of marine resources. Coastal activities are usually highly gendered, both in where and how women participate in value chains and how their contributions are valued and prioritised (Yodanis 2000; Williams 2008; De Silva 2011; Harper et al. 2013, 2017; Lentisco and Lee 2015; Fortnam et al. 2019). Women play an important role in both harvest and post-harvest activities with important implications for families, communities and economies. In the Pacifc region, more than half of small-scale catches are taken by women. Coastal fsheries management policies that better represent their needs could lead to more secure livelihoods and more sustainable catches. Despite this, policies, data collection and stakeholder consultations remain gender-blind in many places. This further marginalises women's voices and interests, further devalues the benefts women's work provides and makes it hard to know how women are affected as the fsheries sector develops.

Gender blindness results from a focus on formal and paid fshing activities (traditionally male-dominated) in research, management and policies, disregarding informal and unpaid activities, usually dominated by women (Harper et al. 2013). Fisheries agencies are also commonly focused on the production segment of fsh value chains, even though twice as many people may be employed in related activities, such as processing and marketing, which are often dominated by women (World Bank 2012). In Senegal, a study found that women represent 90% of the country's seafood processor workforce, valued at \$30.5 million (Belhabib et al. 2014). Such marginalisation has often happened despite increasing recognition that women play a critical role at every link in small-scale fsheries value chains (De Silva 2011; Lentisco and Lee 2015). Failing to account for the gender and other social differentiation in fsheries management can lead to policy interventions that undermine sustainable livelihoods (Bennett 2005; Daw et al. 2015).

#### **Inequity of Access**

Gendered access barriers (ones that affect women and men differently) occur at several points along the fsheries value chain. Overall, women in fshing communities across the world face barriers to more proftable segments of supply chains, due to a variety of socioeconomic and cultural obstacles, as well as conficting household roles (O'Neill and Crona 2017). These can include indirect barriers, such as gender norms in the Philippines that limit women's ability to fsh far from home (Yater 1982). More direct barriers include lack of access to fshing gear, fshing grounds, fshing markets or fnancial capital, including credit, as well as lack of education or alternative livelihoods (Matsue et al. 2014). Gendered power relations are often context-specifc. For instance, in Zambia, fshing gear is largely owned and controlled by men (Cole et al. 2018), whereas in Ghana and Brazil women can inherit fshing boats and gear and either use them themselves (Kleiber et al. 2017) or lease them to men for fshing (Walker 2001). In Norway, women are often not able to buy bigger boats or more proftable quotas because they are denied bank loans (Gerrard and Kleiber 2019), while in western Zambia, women have overcome lack of credit by participating in village savings and lending groups, which they use to buy and resell fsh (Cole et al. 2015). Women may be excluded from markets, such as in Bangladesh, where only the poorest women sell fsh at the market, or in Kenya, where women only have access to the less proftable parts of the catch and have limited trade connections (Matsue et al. 2014; Wamukota 2009). In Guadalajara, Mexico, in contrast, women dominate, often holding infuential positions, having attained these through family networks, skills and cultural heritage (Pedroza 2019). Policies on matters such as spatial management can also have a disproportionate impact on women and other marginalised groups that may not have access to boats or motors that would allow them to reach other fshing zones (Eder 2005). For example, in Madagascar, when a no-take area was placed in the community gleaning areas, women were no longer able to fsh or resorted to fshing illegally at night (Baker-Médard 2017).

#### **Decision-Making and Governance**

Women also often face access barriers to governing institutions, resulting in fewer women's voices included in smallscale fsheries decision-making institutions. In Tanzania, female fsh traders were excluded from formal fsheries management groups (Fröcklin et al. 2013). In Bangladesh, women were not included in decision-making because they were perceived as lacking the necessary knowledge and experience (Kleiber et al. 2017). In Senegal, women make up less than 5% of fsheries governing bodies (Harper et al. 2017). Customary rules may also exclude women, such as in some communities in the Solomon Islands, where women are not allowed to be under the same roof as men with whom they have previously had relationships (Faye Siota, pers. comm.), effectively barring many women from public meeting spaces. Again, gendered norms and power relations in relation to the ocean mirror or enhance general gender inequities, such as those surrounding access to education, health care, food and nutritional security.

## **Appendix 2: Voluntary Environmental Programs**

Source: Blasiak et al. (2018a) and Pretlove and Blasiak (2018)

#### **About the Authors**

#### **Co-authors**

**Henrik Österblom** is Professor and Science Director at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University.

**Colette C.C. Wabnitz** is a Senior Research Scientist at the Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia and Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University.

**Dire Tladi** is a Professor of International Law at the Department of Public Law and the Institute for International and Comparative Law in Africa, University of Pretoria, as well as an extraordinary professor in the Public Law Department, University of Stellenbosch (South Africa).

#### **Contributing Authors**

**Edward H. Allison** is an Honorary Fellow at WorldFish (Malaysia) and an Affliate (Honorary) Professor in the School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington.

**Sophie Arnaud-Haond** is a Research Scientist at Ifremer, in the UMR MARBEC (Marine Biodiversity, Exploitation and Conservation) at Montpellier University, CNRS, IRD (France).

**Jan Bebbington** is a Professor in the Department of Accounting, Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham (UK).

**Nathan Bennett** is a Research Associate at the Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, and is the Chair for the People and the Oceans Specialist Group for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

**Robert Blasiak** is a Researcher at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University and a visiting researcher at the Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Tokyo.

**Wiebren J. Boonstra** is an Associate Professor at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University.

**Afrina Choudhury** is a Research Fellow (Senior Gender Specialist) at WorldFish Bangladesh.

**Andrés M. Cisneros-Montemayor** is a Research Associate and Deputy Director of the Ocean Nexus Program at the Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia.

**Tim Daw** is a Researcher at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University.

**Michael Fabinyi** is an Associate Professor at the School of Communication, University of Technology Sydney.

**Nicole Franz** is a Fishery Planning Analyst with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

**Harriet Harden-Davies i**s a Research Fellow at the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security (ANCORS), University of Wollongong.

**Danika Kleiber** is a Research Fellow at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (Australia) and WorldFish (Malaysia).

**Priscila Lopes** is an Associate Professor in the Department of Ecology at the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte.

**Cynthia McDougall** is the gender research leader for WorldFish (Malaysia) and the CGIAR Research Program on Fish Agri-Food Systems (FISH).

**Budy P. Resosudarmo i**s an Associate Professor at the Crawford School of Economics and Government, Australian National University.

**Samiya A. Selim** is an Associate Professor and the Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at the University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh.

#### **References**

more equitable framework for EU fshing agreements. Mar Policy 38:257–266

Roberts C (2010) The unnatural history of the sea. Shearwater, London

WWF (2018) Principles for a sustainable blue economy. WWF, Gland

**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.

# **14 Integrated Ocean Management**

#### **Abbreviations**

#### **Highlights**

Originally published in:

Winther, J-G., M. Dai, et al. 2020. *Integrated Ocean Management*. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available online at www. oceanpanel.org/blue-papers/integrated-ocean-management

Reprint by Springer International Publishing (2023) with kind permission.

Published under license from the World Research Institute.

tional cooperation in marine science and related sciences by building on established structures such as the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and using the United Nations (UN) Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development as a vehicle for this.

using the best available scientifc knowledge on climate change and including adaptive mechanisms as a vital part of IOM.

#### **1 Introduction**

With the unprecedented growth in economic activities relating to the ocean economy, the need for a sustainable concept where socioeconomic development can occur without environmental degradation is widely recognised. This is manifested at the global level by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which provides the basic global framework for ocean governance (United Nations 1982). Since then, the ocean economy has continued to grow alongside our need for food, energy, transportation and recreation from the ocean. Existing ocean industries expand while new ones appear. At the same time, new challenges are emerging as a result of climate change, loss of biodiversity, pollution and extractive activities. Our ocean is now facing these pressures at unprecedented rates and magnitudes. The mismatch between the drive for shortterm economic gain versus long-term prosperity and a healthy, resilient ocean is increasingly apparent. As a result, we see a pressing need for holistic, knowledge- based and ecosystem-based approaches to ocean management. Integrated ocean management (IOM) is such an approach.

IOM considers multiple uses and pressures simultaneously and helps reconcile competing uses with the objective of ensuring the sustainability of societies and marine ecosystems. The need for a comprehensive perspective on the management of marine ecosystems and their resources was observed many years ago (e.g. Underdal 1980) and is now widely recognised at the global as well as regional and national levels of governance. There are, however, still many challenges relating to the implementation of existing governance frameworks, including knowledge and capacity shortages, incomplete legislation, lack of enforcement, poor coordination among ministries and other government bodies, and no overarching mandate across ministries or mechanisms to harmonise conficting mandates among ministries.

The goal of IOM is to support a 'sustainable ocean economy': long-term, sustainable use of ocean resources in ways that preserve the health and resilience of marine ecosystems and improve livelihoods and jobs, balancing protection and production. IOM brings together relevant actors from government, business, academia and civil society from the entire spectrum of ocean-related human activities (e.g. petroleum, fshing, aquaculture, shipping, tourism, mining, renewable energy, conservation) to collaborate toward a sustainable future for our ocean environment. Here, 'ocean' refers to both marine and coastal areas. The functions of IOM include promoting environmentally sound economic development, protecting coastal and marine habitats and biodiversity, providing ecosystem services and balancing and deconficting interests through spatial planning. IOM also addresses issues such as the conservation of coastal and marine habitats and biodiversity, protection of coastal and marine environments from land-based pollution, fsheries and tourism, as well as impacts from climate change such as sea level rise, ocean warming and deoxygenation, ocean acidifcation, changing storm intensities and more. IOM is a dynamic process, building on existing initiatives and bringing industries and sectors together, whether under the umbrella of marine spatial planning, ecosystem-based management or others. Biodiversity, intact habitats and ecosystem functioning are essential to a healthy, productive and resilient ecosystem. A comprehensive toolbox of measures to accomplish this exists, including area-based management measures.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of how the framework of IOM is established at different levels

#### **Box 14.1 Integrated Ocean Management and Related Planning and Management Approaches**

To discuss integrated ocean management (IOM) further, it is vital to defne a few central terms that are often associated with IOM. The below list is not exhaustive but demonstrates the variety of means that have evolved to achieve smart planning and management in coastal and marine areas. IOM uses a variety of these tools to ensure the sustainability of marine ecosystems. These ideas, terms and concepts have evolved through time and have had different histories in different places. They are not necessarily interchangeable, and they often overlap.

#### **Ecosystem-based management**

Ecosystem-based management (EBM), also referred to as an 'ecosystem-based approach', is central to IOM and defned as management of natural resources focusing on the health, productivity and resilience of a specifc ecosystem, group of ecosystems or selected natural assets as the nucleus of management (Domínguez-Tejo et al. 2016). EBM is a management approach that recognises the full array of interactions within an ecosystem, including with humans, and drives the integration of management planning and implementation across sectoral agencies. Focusing on recognising connections and ensuring coherence, EBM differs from historical approaches that focus on a single species, sector, activity or concern, considering the cumulative impacts of different factors. Specifcally, ecosystem-based management has the following features:

• Emphasis on the protection of ecosystem structure, functioning and key processes

of governance and what is lacking in terms of both frameworks and implementation. Implementation failure is a key issue for IOM, and we discuss cases of IOM from different parts of the world to exemplify this. While these lessons learned are useful for further developing IOM, we also recognise that successful implementation is highly context dependent, making capacity building and location fexibility critical to achieving effective IOM globally.

This paper is written as an input to the work of the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy. It begins by outlining the concept of IOM, explaining its key components and providing an overview of the global ocean governance framework. The paper continues by discussing IOM both in the exclusive economic zones and in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This is followed by a discussion of IOM implementation—both its challenges and the key components for success. Next, we present selected case studies of IOM in practice. To conclude, the paper offers opportunities for action on how IOM can contribute to a sustainable ocean economy.

#### **Integrated coastal zone management**

Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) is 'the process of managing the coast and nearshore waters in an integrated and comprehensive manner with the goal of achieving conservation and sustainable use' (Katona et al. 2017). It is also called 'integrated coastal management'.

ICZM covers the full cycle, including information collection, planning, decision-making, management and implementation. The approach seeks informed participation and cooperation from all relevant stakeholders. It seeks integration of the goals and instruments needed to meet these objectives; of different policy areas, sectors and levels of administration; and of the land and sea components of the target area.

#### **Marine spatial planning**

Marine spatial planning (MSP) is used to create geospatial plans that identify what spaces of the ocean are appropriate for different uses and activities. These plans have similarities with sustainable ocean economy plans, which describe how to sustainably use the ocean and its resources to advance economic and social development.

Marine spatial planning (also known as 'maritime spatial planning' and 'coastal and marine spatial planning') extended the ICZM approach further out to sea in the 2000s. Marine spatial planning aims to create a framework for the ocean that minimises conficts between economic sectors and maintains 'good environmental status' of the ocean through the identifcation of ocean spaces that are appropriate for different uses and activities. MSP is increasingly seen as a practical way to create and establish a more rational organisation of the use of marine space and the interactions between its uses, to balance demands for development with the need to protect marine ecosystems and to achieve social and economic objectives in an open and planned way. MSP is widely used for setting targets for and implementing ecosystem-based management (Katona et al. 2017). The characteristics of effective marine spatial planning include the following:

#### **Adaptive ocean management**

Adaptive ocean management is 'a systematic process for continually improving management policies and practices toward defned goals by learning from the outcomes of previous policies and practices' (Katona et al. 2017). It recognises the inherent variability and dynamic nature of the ocean in terms of its bio-chemo-physical properties and social and economic factors in addition to scientifc uncertainties. By scheduling periodic reviews of and updates to management plans, in addition to adding ad hoc opportunities for responding to unexpected events, adaptive ocean management acknowledges that changes in conditions and knowledge are likely.

#### **Area-based measures including marine protected areas**

Area-based measures are important tools in the management of the ocean and seas and can be used in all approaches outlined here. A marine protected area (MPA) is 'a clearly defned geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values' (Oregon State University et al. 2019). Likely developed independently in many cultures, areabased measures are a regulatory tool for conserving the natural or cultural resources of the ocean and for managing human uses.

If managed in isolation, coastal and marine protected areas are vulnerable to the impacts of resource development and exploitation occurring outside these areas, in particular overfshing, alteration and destruction of habitats, climate change and marine pollution. Thus, protecting coastal and marine areas—including species, habitats, landscapes and seascapes—should be integrated into spatial development strategies for larger areas, under the umbrella of integrated coastal and ocean management, including land-ocean interactions.

#### **2 The Concept of Integrated Ocean Management**

This chapter outlines the global governance framework. International ocean governance is based on coastal states' 1 jurisdiction over their 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zones (EEZs). The authority to manage the EEZs and activities rests with (often multiple) agencies and the laws governing those agencies. While useful for effcient management, divisions of authority over different activities and zones can create challenges for oversight and coordination and thus limit holistic approaches to management. It is therefore important to identify and harmonise the possibly conficting mandates of different agencies, as well as cover the gaps where no agency or entity is responsible. As pressures on the ocean increase, assessing the cumulative impacts of increasing uses and pressures also becomes increasingly important.

The purpose of IOM is to enhance our ability to use and manage ocean resources sustainably, and ensure that the health, productivity and resilience of ocean ecosystems, which provide multiple benefts to humans, are not impaired

<sup>1</sup>A coastal state is a nation state that exercises jurisdiction and sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. 2022 Note that when using this term regarding the United States, it is applicable to the country as a federal state. U.S. states have jurisdiction over 3 nautical miles from the coastline, while the area from 3 to 200 nautical miles is under federal jurisdiction.

by human activities. Examples of some supporting, regulating and cultural ecosystem services provided by ocean ecosystems include partial climate regulation, control of pests and pathogens, nutrient cycling, primary production, cultural identity, inspiration and recreation. Management institutions need to effectively measure, monitor and manage ocean space adaptively as complex adaptive systems (Lubchenco et al. 2016). To achieve this, incorporating participation from governance institutions, academic knowledge (multidisciplinary), other knowledge (transdisciplinary) and multiple stakeholder interests is crucial. Therefore, we argue that stakeholder involvement, the effective use of science and capacity building are keys to achieving real integration.

#### **2.1 The Global Ocean Governance Framework**

Responding to technological developments, increasing demands for natural resources and a growing use of ocean space for human activities, the global framework for ocean governance has evolved signifcantly over the last decades. The centrepiece of this framework is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea—'the constitution of the ocean' which was negotiated between 1973 and 1982 and entered into force in 1994 (United Nations 1982). UNCLOS states in its preamble that 'the problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be considered as a whole'. The convention aims to establish 'a legal order for the seas and oceans which will facilitate international communication, and will promote the peaceful uses of the seas and oceans, the equitable and effcient utilization of their resources, the conservation of their living resources, and the study, protection and preservation of the marine environment'. As of 2019, 168 countries are parties to the convention. The implementation of UNCLOS is overseen by the UN General Assembly, which adopts annual resolutions on the ocean and the law of the sea addressing a comprehensive range of issues relating to the implementation of the convention.

UNCLOS establishes a legal order for the ocean where coastal states can exert sovereign rights over the natural resources in a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf also beyond 200 nautical miles (Fig. 14.1). Where continental shelves extend beyond 200 nautical miles, their outer limits are established based on recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. The mineral resources at the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction ('the Area') are considered the common heritage of mankind, and the International Seabed Authority (ISA) is tasked with their management. The ISA is currently responsible for developing regional environmental management plans for deep-sea mining regions. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is one of several options for resolving disputes.

**Fig. 14.1** Maritime zones as defned by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. (*Source: Anders Skoglund, Norwegian Polar Institute 2020*)

To provide guidance on the implementation of the convention, implementation agreements have been negotiated for deep seabed minerals (United Nations 1994) and fsheries (United Nations 1995). The latter require application of a precautionary approach to fsheries management and regional cooperation in the management of fsheries on the high seas. In response to growing concerns related to conservation and use of marine biodiversity, a third implementation agreement is under negotiation, addressing area-based management, marine genetic resources, environmental impact assessments and technology transfers, and capacity building for the areas beyond national jurisdiction. Governance bodies are also in place for specifc themes. For example, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulates the shipping industry. IMO has adopted a number of international agreements setting out the standards for the industry related to the environment, operations and labour, among others.

In fsheries, additional layers of governance to the convention and the 1995 implementing agreement are provided by agreements adopted by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) that address the ecosystem effects of fshing as well as the need to confront illegal activities. One example of this is the 2009 *Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing* (FAO 2009). Regional cooperation is important in the management of transboundary fsh stocks on the high seas, with about 20 regional fsheries management organisations providing international cooperation for the management of such stocks.

Separately, many environmental concerns are addressed in instruments relating to various types of pollution, climate change (e.g. the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity at global as well as regional levels of governance. This includes the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and its regional seas programmes.

International cooperation in marine science is centred around the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) and the Regular Process under the UN General Assembly at the global level, as well as in several regional bodies such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in the North Atlantic, and the North Pacifc Marine Science Organization (PICES).

With increasing uses and pressures on the ocean and its ecosystems, concern for the cumulative impact on marine ecosystems has grown. UNCLOS explicitly recognises this concern. Various efforts have been made to address these issues; however, solutions are often insuffcient to address the accelerating challenges facing the ocean, such as biodiversity depletion and plastic pollution. Several global summits, such as the 2012 Rio Conference and its 'The Future We Want' declaration, have highlighted the need to consider the total impacts of ocean use.

The World Ocean Assessment of the Regular Process to assess the status of the marine environment under the UN General Assembly concluded with the following in its frst report (United Nations 2015):

*The sustainable use of the ocean cannot be achieved unless the management of all sectors of human activities affecting the ocean is coherent. Human impacts on the sea are no longer minor in relation to the overall scale of the ocean. A coherent overall approach is needed. This requires considerations of the effects on ecosystems of each of the many pressures, what is being done in other sectors and the way that they interact.*

The annual UN General Assembly resolutions on the ocean and law of the sea address these issues and have done so since 1999 in what constitutes a de facto global ocean coordination. The preamble of the 2018 resolution states the following:

. . . the problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be considered as a whole through an integrated, interdisciplinary and intersectoral approach, and reaffrming the need to improve cooperation and coordination at the national, regional and global levels, in accordance with the Convention, to support and supplement the efforts of each State in promoting the implementation and observance of the Convention and the integrated management and sustainable development of the oceans and seas *. . .*

Also, as a follow-up to the Millennium Development Goals, the UN General Assembly in 2015 adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as part of the 2030 Agenda. Several of the SDGs are relevant to the ocean and contain specifc targets and timetables for achieving them. Goal 14, 'Life below water', addresses marine issues specifcally. This goal provides opportunities to facilitate concrete actions for ocean sustainability and to foster greater integration among the sectors of ocean governance.

It is, however, evident that the implementation of the global governance framework leaves a lot to be desired. In some regions, pollution levels (from toxins, nutrients and plastic) are high, about one-third of the world's fsh stocks are overfshed, illegal fshing is a serious problem and the ocean is increasingly impacted by the effects of increased emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide such as warming, acidifcation and deoxygenation. As coastal states' abilities and capacities to implement existing rights and obligations are hampered by inadequate science and weak and poorly enforced regulatory frameworks, it is widely recognised that institutional capacity building is a critical factor to strengthen ocean governance. Capacity building is therefore now at the forefront of the global ocean debate and on the agendas of the UN General Assembly and subsidiary bodies such as the FAO and the IOC. The 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the 2019 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services' global assessment of biodiversity provide further understanding of why we should care about biodiversity and what the major drivers of change are.

Integrated ocean management can be implemented across several ocean economy sectors, jurisdictions and spatial scales. These applications may take the form of localised ocean management within national waters, sector-defned ocean management across adjacent jurisdictions, at regional seas or at ocean basin scales, or international ocean management occurring across large ocean areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction, including in the Area (i.e. the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction).

#### **3 The Implementation of Integrated Ocean Management**

This chapter analyses the challenges of implementing IOM and identifes key components of success. It continues by discussing how IOM can contribute to a healthy, productive and resilient ocean for long-term, sustainable economic growth. It highlights the need to calibrate the sophistication of management plans to the situation at hand, authority and political will, available data and societal values. It concludes by arguing that supplementing sector-based management with collaborative and coordinating mechanisms across sectors would be highly benefcial.

The rising demand for various uses of ocean space increases the complexity in modern ocean governance and management, and thus calls for better coordination among sectors and other stakeholders (Klinger et al. 2018). In some countries, the legal and institutional arrangements that divide ocean management are long-standing and the legal mechanisms to coordinate these arrangements at the domestic level as well as with adjacent nations are lacking. This makes it diffcult to account for the cumulative effects including those over time—of economic development, management and environmental change on marine ecosystems. Overcoming such institutional barriers requires political will from government leaders as well as from businesses and civil societies across all sectors of human activity. For the beneft of both human and natural resource values, a defned mechanism to coordinate sector management and enhance collaboration within and among countries is essential for defning and advancing IOM. A complex adaptive systems lens has thus emerged as a new approach to help identify key indicators to refne IOM. The rapidly growing data and knowledge about our ocean will clearly add feasibility in this regard.

#### **3.1 Components of Successful IOM**

Every IOM plan depends on the country or region, as specifc problems, challenges and institutional conditions vary and are highly context dependent. However, regardless of the legal underpinning of IOM, experience demonstrates that the following components are important:

These components must be structured thoughtfully for IOM to be effective. More importantly, every integrated ocean management plan should be specifc to the country or region. The variation in institutional conditions and challenges also underlines the importance of local capacity building, particularly to enable the collection and adequate use of marine data and transformation of these data into useful information and knowledge.

#### **3.1.1 Institutional structures**

A legal structure can provide direction for IOM within or among nations, thus creating the context for defning and advancing cross-sectoral, long-term, ocean-related goals and objectives. In many cases this is absent, and alternatives such as interpreting existing law to take an integrated management approach, adding provisions to existing laws, issuing an administrative order or fnding other mechanisms can also be effective. At the regional level, the European Union (EU) created the 2008 Marine Strategy Framework Directive (European Union 2008). This is an EU legal instrument that provides a framework and requirements for member countries to implement marine plans aiming for 'good environmental status' by 2021. A different example is from U.S. state Massachusetts, which created legislation with the Oceans Act of 2008 that provided authority and direction to create an ocean plan (Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2008). This act also provided guidance and identifed representation categories for who should serve on the science and policy advisory bodies that made recommendations as the management plan was developed.

Reinterpreting or adding to existing legislation, or fnding other mechanisms such as administrative orders and directives to establish authority for IOM, can facilitate improved coordination and supplement the sector-by-sector approach. The Netherlands took the reinterpretation-of-existing-law approach as it developed an integrated ocean management plan for its nearshore areas through an Inter-Ministerial Consultation Body for the North Sea involving all relevant ministries, such as defence, transport, public works and water management, economic affairs and the environment (Douvere and Ehler 2009). U.S. state Rhode Island voluntarily developed an ocean plan in partnership with the federal government that implements ecosystem-based management principles by reinterpreting the state Coastal Resources Management Council's authorising legislation within the national Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The plan was approved by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Offce for Coastal Management, which enhances the state's infuence in federal waters through the Federal Consistency provisions in the CZMA.

Legislative provisions can also be added to existing law to establish authority and provide clarity for developing a more holistic management process. This can potentially be achieved by adding provisions to legislation that regulates new ocean uses to make IOM a requirement for new development to be permitted. These provisions can include making strategic environmental assessments a requirement. Developing directive language that ensures positive outcomes for the regulated sector for which the original legislation was written is necessary to demonstrate the added value of requiring a more integrated approach with other sectors.

Administrative orders or directives can also be used to defne a framework for coordinated management. These directives may articulate high-level targets and leave the definition of specifc management goals and objectives to relevant regulatory agencies or planning entities. This approach was taken by the United States for its entire EEZ through an executive order from the president that instructed federal agencies to coordinate with state and tribal authorities to develop regional ocean plans for each Large Marine Ecosystem in U.S. waters (Executive Offce of the President 2010; Lubchenco and Sutley 2010). The executive order provided a clear overarching mandate: to protect and restore ocean ecosystems to a healthy, productive and resilient state. Two regions, the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, successfully completed and are implementing their regional ocean plans. Norway is another example demonstrating that IOM does not have to be grounded in law if political authority is provided. Norway's integrated management plan is based on mapping and assessing the status of marine ecosystems, identifying ecologically valuable and vulnerable areas and setting conditions for the use of ocean space including for the petroleum industry (Norwegian Ministry of the Environment 2006). These examples are further explored later in this paper.

It is recognised, however, that a comprehensive legal regime alone is not enough to achieve the desired outcome when, for example, illicit activities or lacking enforcement or capacity create a gap between the legal framework and reality.

#### **3.1.2 Ocean and Coastal Data and Use Of Science**

Many countries do not have enough monitoring and scientifc capacity to provide the knowledge foundation required to implement the international governance frameworks they are bound by. The 2017 Global Ocean Science Report demonstrated clearly that many countries lack fundamental scientifc capacity to underpin their efforts at ocean governance (IOC-UNESCO 2017). Scientifc capacity to assemble the information required to manage the ocean's ecosystems and economic activities and establish regulatory measures needs to be developed. New technologies have revolutionised how governments can monitor and police inappropriate behaviour at sea. Global Fishing Watch, offering near real-time tracking of fshing activity via a public map, is an example of how new technologies and transparency can lead to improved means for sustainable governance. If such tools are combined with coordinated policing efforts and effective prosecution, they can become very powerful.

In developing IOM, it is critical to take a systematic approach to building scientifc capacity that addresses the needs in the regions concerned. Capacity building needs to remain at the top of the international agenda. Regional solutions do have the potential to be effective, as demonstrated by ICES in the North Atlantic. Regional cooperation can help pool resources for IOM and facilitate the sharing of experiences. The UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030) could be a suitable process and platform to accelerate the development and use of ocean science. The purpose of the UN Decade is to provide a common framework to ensure that ocean science can fully support countries' actions to sustainably manage the ocean and achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Furthermore, we recognise the extensive knowledge on the ocean that already exists. Thus, there is a need to not only foster new science but also use existing and historical information—and lack of data should not limit action. There must be explicit mechanisms in place in the IOM decision-making process to make use of existing science. A body of knowledge, for reference, exists on how to cope with data-poor situations in managing, for example, fsheries (Pilling et al. 2008). Incorporating traditional knowledge into the management process must also be a priority. The challenge is to integrate new information while simultaneously managing a dynamic ocean environment within IOM.

#### **3.1.3 Engagement of Relevant User Groups**

Planning at the local level, especially in developing countries and small island developing states (SIDS), requires taking approaches tailored to the diverse environmental, socioeconomic and governance systems in those regions. Incorporating local knowledge can ensure active community participation to develop appropriate strategies for IOM. Participatory approaches have proven to be effective at the local level for all phases of establishing and operating ocean governance. However, even with thorough planning, implementation remains constrained. Scaling up and reorienting local actions to larger-scale activities, governance regimes at national and regional levels and appropriate ecological scales are important and diffcult and require specifc time and resources in themselves (Fig. 14.2).

In the context of IOM, it is particularly important to engage ocean businesses at the global, national and local levels. There are different ways of organising this, and recent years have seen several cases of ocean businesses joining forces for sustainability. One example is the UN Global Compact Action Platform for Sustainable Ocean Business, which has developed principles and guidelines for sustainable ocean businesses—several of the largest ocean-related businesses globally have signed on to it.

**Fig. 14.2** The Ecosystem is at the Core of Integrated Ocean Management. *Note: An ecosystem- and knowledge-based integrated ocean management ensures a sustainable ocean economy. Stakeholder engagement is key. (Source: Centre for the Ocean and the Arctic, Norway 2019)*

As will be demonstrated by the case studies later in this paper, while successful engagement processes will vary as they take into account the local context, engaging relevant user groups is always a central component of successful IOM.

#### **3.2 The Case of the 'Collective Arrangement': Toward IOM in Area-Based Management in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction**

The development of integrated ocean management approaches in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) is hindered by legal gaps in the global ocean governance framework. One of the key functions of the new global agreement for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) is to provide a legal framework for the development of a comprehensive approach to area- based management, including marine protected areas (Gjerde et al. 2019).

One of the few examples of how integrated approaches in area-based management in ABNJ can be developed is the 'Collective Arrangement' between the OSPAR Commission and the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, or NEAFC (NEAFC and OSPAR 2014). The objective of the Collective Arrangement is to facilitate cooperation on areabased management between legally competent organisations for the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources in the Northeast Atlantic. In 2010, the OSPAR Commission established the world's frst network of marine protected areas in ABNJ. But OSPAR does not have the mandate to establish legally binding measures to regulate human activities such as fsheries, shipping or, in the future, deep seabed mining. However, in a parallel process, NEAFC as the competent organisation for fsheries management has closed fsheries to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems in broadly the same areas (Kvalvik 2011). Both organisations received scientifc advice from ICES leading to a coherent approach in establishing those area-based measures. To facilitate future coordination and cooperation in the region, OSPAR and NEAFC set up the Collective Arrangement—which includes regular meetings between the parties and exchanges of relevant information and planned activities—and invited others, including the IMO and ISA, to join (Ásmundsson and Corcoran 2015).

The agreement has already demonstrated its value by providing a framework for consultations with other sectors in the process of establishing new high seas MPAs in the Northeast Atlantic, though it remains somewhat incomplete without the other management bodies. The Collective Arrangement does not include any legal changes to the current governance framework in the Northeast Atlantic. Instead, it can be seen as a frst step in the departure from a purely sectoral approach in ocean management to a more integrated one that could inform the development of comparable approaches in other regions and the negotiation of the new global legally binding agreement for marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

#### **3.3 A Healthy, Productive and Resilient Ocean for Long-Term Economic Growth**

The overall goal of IOM is to enable economic development while maintaining a healthy ocean ecosystem. The ocean has always attracted multiple uses, including fsheries, oil and gas extraction, shipping and transportation, military, mining, and recreation, among others. Many areas attract a variety of competing uses, which cause conficts between users (useruser conficts) and users and the environment (user- environment conficts) (Tuda et al. 2014). The need to minimise user-user and user-environment conficts while taking advantage of new economic opportunities offered by the ocean and maintaining a sustainable marine ecosystem—has seen increased interest and action at varying political levels in the spatial management of marine resources (Gustavsson and Morrissey 2018; Domínguez-Tejo et al. 2016).

Marine spatial planning is an emerging paradigm for sustainable ocean management (Douvere 2008; Domínguez-Tejo et al. 2016) and the operationalisation of a sustainable ocean economy. MSP aims to move away from a traditional, sectoral focus to a more holistic approach which takes into account the full use of the ocean space (White et al. 2012). Within the sustainable ocean economy framework, MSP should ideally be a means of creating an optimal investment climate for maritime sectors and give operators more certainty as to what opportunities for economic development are possible, though inequity, greater confict and faster rates of degradation may occur if not calibrated appropriately with ecosystem goals and monitored over time. As a management tool, MSP allocates areas of the ocean for different uses and activities to reduce conficts and achieve ecological, economic and social objectives. A key theme of MSP is the adoption of an ecosystem-based approach to ocean management. This involves focusing on the functional relationships and processes within the marine ecosystem, paying attention to the distribution of benefts that fow from ocean ecosystem services, using adaptive management practices, carrying out management actions at multiple scales and cooperating at an intersectoral level (Douvere and Ehler 2009). This approach is in direct contrast to current ad hoc, sector-bysector responsibilities and practices for the management and regulation of ocean activities.

Although MSP is currently underway in 66 countries worldwide, only 22 countries have government-approved marine spatial plans (Santos et al. 2019).

#### **4 Integrated Ocean Management in Practice**

Below are a set of case studies selected to illustrate differences in implementation goals, jurisdictional types and management scales of IOM in different parts of the world: the Coral Triangle, the Seychelles, Norway, the United States and China (Fig. 14.3). There are common traits among them, such as the need for robust information about the relevant ecosystems and human activities, the need to tailor IOM to local contexts and the use of mechanisms to estimate the cumulative impact of uses and pressures on marine ecosystems.

#### **4.1 The Coral Triangle and the Seychelles**

Tropical nearshore coastal ecosystems (i.e. mangrove forests, seagrass beds and coral reefs) are among the most diverse and productive ecosystems in the ocean. A wide range of stakeholders, particularly low-income coastal communities, are highly dependent on the goods and services provided by these ecosystems, which are also the most vulnerable to climate change. Strengthening the resilience of these ecosystems to sustain the direct and indirect goods and services they provide is at the core of ocean management initiatives at the national and transnational levels.

This section discusses how IOM has been used with a focus on climate change adaptation, marine protected areas and fsheries management to address social, economic and conservation objectives simultaneously in some SIDS—here exemplifed by the Coral Triangle (Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste) and the Seychelles.

#### **4.1.1 Conservation and the Case of Fisheries Management in the Coral Triangle**

MPAs range from small, local and community-based networks to national networks to regional, multistate initiatives. In SIDS, most MPAs are managed by local community members, particularly small-scale fshers. Since these MPAs are small, there is often a spatial mismatch relative to important ecological processes (Horigue et al. 2012; Mills et al. 2010). To date, a major challenge with implementing MPAs has been that they are seen as serving conservation or protectionist interests, not human interests, thus driving a topdown, nature-centric agenda that alienates local communities and ends up marginalising conservation. If MPAs are seen as promoting only a nature-centric agenda and not supported by local users, or their relevance to recovering depleted fsheries is not obvious, then a more comprehensive approach involving ecosystem- based management, marine spatial planning or ocean zoning might be a better option. Nonetheless, areabased management measures are important and the most

**Fig. 14.3** Map of Case Studies of IOM in Practice. (*Source: Authors*)

prevalent management intervention used to meet conservation and fsheries management goals in developing tropical states, including SIDS. To maximise their impact, MPA planning should be integrated into broader marine spatial planning and ocean zoning efforts (Agardy et al. 2011).

Regarding effectiveness, improvements in fsh biomass including the recovery of functionally important groups reported for many small MPAs—indicate that conservation objectives can also be achieved at the local scale. For example, in community-based MPAs in Papua New Guinea that protect grouper aggregations, there was a 10-fold increase in the reproductive population compared with an unprotected site after fve years (Hamilton et al. 2011). In the Philippines, a study on fsh biomass showed that 32 percent of MPAs had estimated fsh biomass within and above the estimated maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (McClanahan et al. 2015). However, further research (Muallil et al. 2019) found that areas adjacent to the MPAs were below the MSY. This indicates that small, locally managed MPAs alone are not enough for coral reef fsheries management. However, despite lim-

#### **Box 14.2 Goals and Targets of the Coral Triangle Initiative's Regional Plan of Action**

The regional plan of action of the Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) has the following goals and targets:

	- Target 1: 'Priority seascapes' are designated, with investment plans completed and sequenced.
	- Target 2: Marine and coastal resources within all priority seascapes are sustainably managed.
	- Target 1: Strong legislative, policy and regulatory frameworks are in place for achieving an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM).
	- Target 2: Improved incomes, livelihoods and food security exist in an increasingly signifcant number of coastal communities across the region through a new sustainable coastal fsheries and poverty reduction initiative ('COASTFISH').
	- Target 3: Effective measures are in place to help ensure that the exploitation of shared tuna stocks is sustainable, with tuna spawning areas and juvenile growth stages adequately protected.

ited perceived impact on improving the state of the local fsheries resources, community- based MPAs have been effective in empowering the local fshing communities (Maliao et al. 2009). Thus, the MPAs provide social benefts and enable active community participation in resource management. Further, demonstrating the local impacts of MPAs has been important in sustaining and scaling up efforts.

On a regional scale, MPAs are part of a holistic approach of the Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries, and Food Security (CTI-CFF). The CTI-CFF is a formal intergovernmental partnership among the six countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste to sustain marine and coastal resources and address food security, climate change and marine biodiversity. The adoption of a regional plan of action (RPOA) by member countries and implementation of national plans of actions illustrate implementation at regional and national levels. Establishment of marine protected areas and networks is a centrepiece of national plans on integrated coastal resources management to address conservation and local fsheries enhancement.

	- Target 1: The region-wide Coral Triangle MPA System is in place and fully functional.
	- Target 1: The region-wide Early Action Plan for Climate Change Adaptation for the nearshore marine and coastal environment and small island ecosystems is developed and implemented.
	- Target 2: Networked national Centers of Excellence (COEs) on climate change adaptation for marine and coastal environments are established and in full operation.
	- Target 1: Improved statuses are achieved for sharks, sea turtles, seabirds, marine mammals, corals, seagrass, mangroves and other identifed threatened species.

*Source: Coral Triangle Initiative* 2019.

The RPOA is guided by principles of integration, inclusive stakeholder participation, multilevel governance mechanisms to implement action plans, and recognition of the uniqueness, fragility and vulnerability of island ecosystems. There are technical working groups for each of the fve programmes to address each goal; government working groups for fnancial resources, monitoring and evaluation; and other committees for various cross-cutting themes for capacity building, such as a regional leaders' forum, a female leaders' forum and local government networks. The CTI-CFF also has international development partners and collaborators that provide fnancial and technical assistance.

To support systematic conservation planning, guidelines for designing marine reserve networks within broader spatial planning and management frameworks to address biodiversity conservation, fsheries management, climate change adaptation and coastal management have been formulated (Green et al. 2014). A geospatial database and analyses of those data have been useful to inform planning efforts at different scales and provide a knowledge base for improved decision-making (Asaad et al. 2018, 2019). National plans of action support the regional goals through national interagency and multisectoral partnerships and programmes. Each member country has its own implementation activities aligned with improving governance of the ocean.

#### **4.1.2 Climate Change Adaptation in the Seychelles**

Coping with climate change impacts, such as sea level rise, is complicated in the SIDS because of the countries' small sizes, isolation and exposure, and high dependence on natural resources for their populations' livelihoods. Ecosystembased adaptation (EBA) has been highlighted as one approach to address declines in ecosystem health and enable sustainable adaptation to climate change at national or community scales.

As in other countries, MSP has been used to support ecosystem-based management.

The Seychelles was the frst nation to participate in an ocean-based debt-for-nature swap. Part of the agreement required incorporating climate change adaptation into a marine spatial planning process in support of the country's ocean economy goals. The goals of the Seychelles Marine Spatial Plan (SMSP). Initiative are to address climate change adaptation, protect 30 percent of the Seychelles' waters, including 15 percent with high protection status, and support the Blue Economy Roadmap and other national strategies. The geographic scope of the SMSP Initiative is the entire 1.4 million square kilometres (km2 ) of the EEZ and territorial sea. The process is led by the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change of the government of the Seychelles (GOS), with planning and facilitation managed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and TNC Canada, in partnership with the government management system for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) environmental programme in the Seychelles (the GOS-UNDP-GEF Programme Coordination Unit). Funding for the initiative is being provided through several grants to the government of the Seychelles from The Nature Conservancy and a number of philanthropic foundations, and through the creation of blue bonds.

The MSP Executive Committee has representation from all the ministries and parastatal agencies related to the marine sectors. The process includes public workshops and public information sessions to generate input from all major sectors including commercial fshing, tourism and marine charters, biodiversity conservation, renewable energy, port authority, maritime safety, and non-renewable resources (SMSP Initiative 2019). The process began in February 2014 and will be completed by December 2020. The SMSP Zoning Framework has three zones: high biodiversity protection; medium biodiversity protection and sustainable use; and multiple use.

Existing uses were mapped in 2014–2015 and are used to inform proposals for new marine protection areas. Notably, the SMSP Initiative is a component of the government-led Debt-for-Climate-Change-Adaptation swap. The Seychelles Conservation and Climate Adaptation Trust, which was operationalised in November 2016 to fund climate change adaptation and conservation projects in the Seychelles, will also provide partial funding to implement the SMSP Initiative.

Other SIDS have not gone through a national, governmentled, comprehensive MSP process as that in the Seychelles but have experiences in ecosystem- based management and spatial planning linked to climate change adaptation (CCA) strategies. However, these experiences have often not been successful without a national, government-led framework. This demonstrates that both political will and funding are needed in addition to robust stakeholder engagement processes. For example, in the central Pacifc, top-down coastal adaptation approaches usually fail because coastal communities in the tropical Pacifc have customary land, island and coastal tenure, supported by traditional governance (Grantham et al. 2011). To facilitate active participation, global climate change is addressed in the Pacifc context in discussions with communities. Traditional adaptations—for example, to maintain food security given unpredictable climate events—are incorporated in CCA planning to engage communities and boost awareness. Planning is primarily small scale, with bottom-up processes directly engaging local communities through participatory approaches supporting spatial planning. In the Caribbean, an analysis by Mercer et al. (2012) has shown inconsistencies in EBA theory and practice. The CCA plan in the Caribbean centred upon coastal ecosystems at a regional level as opposed to the full range of ecosystems, which is especially important given the tight linkages between terrestrial and marine ecosystems in small island states. Likewise, integrating local knowledge with external knowledge was identifed as a gap in developing appropriate context-specifc adaptation strategies (Mercer et al. 2012).

#### **4.1.3 Challenges and Lessons Learned**

There are various ongoing initiatives in SIDS and tropical island developing states that are working toward a more integrated ocean management regime. We have presented two examples where key priorities have focused on improving the resilience of coastal communities and marine ecosystems linked to the overarching need for climate change adaptation. Despite various challenges, experiences in planning and ecosystem-based management provide valuable lessons that may help make future efforts more effcient and effective.

First, planning at the local and national levels requires taking into consideration the local environmental, socioeconomic and governance systems. In all cases, stakeholder participation and incorporation of local knowledge are essential in developing appropriate strategies. Experiences in these countries indicate that ecosystem-based management and MSP should build on and strengthen community-based management. Participatory approaches have been demonstrated to be effective at the local level for climate change adaptation planning and all phases of the MPA process (i.e. MPA planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, feedback and adaptation of the management plan).

Second, scaling up and reorienting local actions to largerscale activities and appropriate ecological scales are essential and require improved governance regimes at national and regional levels. In many cases, even with improved planning, implementation remains constrained. There are many challenges to integrated ocean management in the CTI (Weeks et al. 2015) that constrain effective implementation at the regional and national levels. They include a failure to institutionalise conservation planning within governments at different levels nationally and systematic planning across nations with different governance systems, poor integration of planning efforts across these governance systems and levels, and failure to overcome short-term funding and political cycles relative to long-term planning and implementation timeframes (Weeks et al. 2015). Funding and technical support for IOM planning including MSP in the CTI and SIDS have been facilitated through various development programmes, partnerships with nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and public- private partnerships, but national funding mechanisms for the long-term implementation of plans, such as the Seychelles Conservation and Climate Adaptation Trust, are needed (SMSP Initiative 2019).

Third, formal and informal social networks for data sharing and capacity building are essential at different levels of government to accelerate integration and scale. Regional alliances such as the CTI have been forged to facilitate regional and broader-scale policy support and frameworks to harmonise national plans of actions. The SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action (SAMOA) pathway is anchored on the conviction that sustainable development can be achieved through strong partnerships. These high-level alliances are supported by social networks for capability building and implementation, and multisectoral consortia of private and public organisations, researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. Examples include Many Strong Voices, a collaboration between the Arctic and SIDS (Mercer et al. 2012), and the MPA Support Network in the Philippines (Horigue et al. 2012).

Knowledge gaps on socioecological interactions at various scales are a persistent limitation in integrated ocean management planning and implementation in the SIDS and CTI (e.g. Khan and Amelie 2015; Mills et al. 2010). To help support capacity building and address the lack of suffcient information, technical assistance programmes on MSP have been provided, studies to address data gaps (e.g. socioeconomic data) undertaken and information compiled to make it more accessible (e.g. in databases). For example, the CTI atlas, initiated through partnerships among international NGOs supporting the CTI, is a repository of geospatial information and used to track progress. However, keeping the information up-to-date and enhancing functionality remains a challenge due to a lack of local capabilities and fnancial resources (Cros et al. 2014; Asaad et al. 2019).

#### **4.2 The Norwegian Ocean Management Plans**

Norway's ocean areas span 3,000 km from boreal to polar climates and measure 2.1 million km2 , fve times the country's land area. The dominate physical infuence is the Atlantic current transporting heat from the southwest Atlantic to the north, making the country (and northwestern Europe) several degrees Celsius warmer than corresponding latitudes in North America. Its three major marine regions are the Barents Sea in the north, the Norwegian Sea, and the North Sea in the south. While the Barents and North Seas are shallow shelf seas, the Norwegian Sea is a deep ocean with a narrow continental shelf along the coast. Ocean currents and other oceanographic conditions are favourable for biological productivity, and these seas are therefore very rich in fsh resources. Also, the fjords provide favourable conditions for aquaculture, and the continental shelves contain abundant petroleum resources as well as other minerals.

The Barents Sea (1.4 million km2 ) is divided between Norway and Russia following a boundary agreement in 2010 and is limited to the north by the high seas in the central Arctic Ocean. The Norwegian Sea is bound to the west with the waters of Greenland, Iceland and the Faroes, as well as the high seas there. In the North Sea, Norway's waters (and continental shelf) meet those of the United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden (Fig. 14.4). That Norway shares ocean boundaries with seven other countries is an important determinant of its marine policies, as transboundary resources and ecosystems require international cooperation for their management, at bilateral as well as regional levels of coopera-

**Fig. 14.4** Map of Norway's Marine Management Plan Areas. (*Source: Data from Barentswatch 2020 (*https://kart.barentswatch.no/ *arealverktoy). Map by Centre for the Ocean and the Arctic, Norway 2020*)

tion. Another important determinant is the global framework for ocean governance described at the outset of this paper.

#### **4.2.1 Economic activity and ocean governance**

Petroleum is by far the most important industry in Norway, contributing US \$60 billion in 2018—approximately onequarter of Norway's export earnings. Fisheries and aquaculture contribute about \$11 billion in export value. In addition, shipping, shipbuilding, tourism, petroleum services and other ocean-related activities are signifcant contributors to Norway's ocean economy, together constituting 70% of the national gross domestic product. Recent developments include increasing interest in renewables, exploitation of new species of living marine resources, minerals other than petroleum and marine bioprospecting. The ocean economy is critical to the welfare of both the general population and, in particular, coastal communities.

The management of the ocean has evolved over centuries, with active government regulation in the fisheries sector dating back to at least the mid-1800s. The petroleum and aquaculture industries started in earnest in the 1970s and were accompanied by the development of management institutions and legal regimes for their regulation. At the same time, regulations to protect the marine environment were established. Since then, the regulatory regime has evolved significantly. Today, all major sectors—including petroleum, the environment, transportation, fisheries, aquaculture and minerals—have modern and effective regulatory regimes based on sector-specific acts.