The ocean economy – from fishing and mineral extraction to offshore energy, shipping, and coastal tourism – is expected to double in size by 2030. This column argues that continued exploitation is undermining the marine environment and the people dependent on it. Creating a greener ocean economy will require global policies that protect vulnerable coastal populations and the deep sea. It will also require funding for marine conservation. Major ocean industries have the most to gain from protecting marine capital and should contribute accordingly to preserve and restore our oceans.
University Distinguished Professor
The ocean economy comprises a wide range of industries – fishing, offshore energy, mineral extraction, shipping, and coastal tourism. It generates $1.5 trillion in global value added, accounts for around 31 million jobs, and is expected to double in size by 2030 (OECD 2016, Duarte et al. 2020, Sumaila et al. 2021). These ocean-based industries are supported and sustained by a diverse array of marine capital, comprising estuarine and coastal ecosystems, marine resources, species, and habitats that stretch from shorelines to the deep sea. But because we continually exploit our oceans as if they represent a limitless frontier, we are running down our marine capital at an unprecedented rate. As this capital depreciates, it undermines the sustainability of the ocean economy and the people dependent on it. Yet we continue to ignore these losses as we deplete and pollute our oceans.
To overcome these threats, many have called for creating a greener ocean economy. For example, Lubchenco et al. (2020) suggest five investment priorities for greening the ocean economy: manage seafood sustainably, mitigate climate change, stem biodiversity loss, seize opportunity for economic recovery, and manage the ocean holistically. These are laudable and important objectives. However, realising these goals will require addressing two major disincentives to building a more sustainable ocean economy: the underpricing and underfunding of marine capital (Barbier 2022 and 2023).
The main reason we are losing our marine capital is because it is grossly underpriced. Many important values provided by the marine environment – storm protection, biodiversity, habitats, carbon sequestration, and so on – are ignored or discounted in our decisions to exploit, convert, and pollute our coastlines and seas. In some cases, such as fishing subsidies, over-exploitation of the underlying capital is encouraged, with harmful economic, environmental, and distributional consequences.
In addition, there is a large gap between the investments required to protect and conserve oceans and coasts and current funding levels for marine capital. This funding gap is currently $120–$154 billion annually (Barbier 2023), which could grow considerably as we lose more marine capital.
What is urgently needed is a new global agreement on oceans and coasts with three principal aims:
- Phasing out environmentally harmful subsidies for fishing, extractive activities, and other industries in the ocean economy.
- Implementing market-based incentives, management reforms, regulations, and other incentives to reduce ecological damages from ocean economy industries.
- Using any financial savings and revenues generated to support global funds and investments for conserving, restoring, and protecting marine capital in an inclusive manner.
We can also envision these aims as three distinct steps in the process of fostering global collective action on oceans and coasts (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 Three steps for global action on greening the ocean economy
Source: Adapted from Barbier (2023), Figure 1.
An immediate aim is for all coastal nation states to agree on removing environmentally harmful subsidies for fishing, extractive activities, and other sectors of the ocean economy operating in their territorial waters, exclusive economic zones (EEZs), and areas beyond national jurisdiction. Fishing subsidies alone cost $35 billion a year, primarily benefit industrial fishing fleets, contribute to overfishing and ecological damages, exacerbate illegal fishing, and worsen inequality and poverty (Sumaila et al. 2019). Subsidies may also be driving increased exploration and industrial exploitation of the vast and fragile deep sea, not only by fisheries but for energy and minerals.
Countries should also agree to adopt policy reforms and regulations to promote more sustainable management of marine capital, and to adopt taxes, license fees, tradable quotas, and other market-based incentives to deter marine ecological damages incurred by various ocean industries. Coastal states should adopt such reforms for industries in their own territorial waters and EEZs and push for them among industries operating in the marine environment beyond national jurisdiction as well.
The revenues and finances saved from ending the underpricing of marine capital could be directed to closing the $120–$154 billion funding gap for marine capital. Global funds could assist low and middle-income countries in conserving and restoring estuarine and coastal habitats, sustainably producing food from capture fisheries and mariculture, decarbonising international shipping, and expanding marine protected areas. Developing countries may also need global assistance to control illegal fishing and reduce plastic pollution.
For example, critical to reducing plastic pollution in oceans could be the establishment of a global fund to assist developing countries in stemming their outflow of plastic waste (Raubenheimer and McIlgorm 2018). The fund would aim to enhance adoption of preventative measures, with a focus on improving collection services, closing leakage points in collection facilities, improving disposal technologies, and recycling. The fund could also assist developing countries in devising economic incentive schemes that reduce plastic use and products that cannot be easily recovered, reused, or recycled. Examples include taxes and bans on the landfilling of plastic waste, as well as government procurement policies and tax incentives for manufacturers that incorporate recycled content in products.
A global fund may also be needed for ecosystem monitoring of the deep sea. Such monitoring is essential for expanding our capacity to protect and restore deep-sea ecosystems and their resources. Estimates suggest that it would cost $2 to $3 billion for implementing and deploying 20 strategically placed monitoring networks, with additional maintenance costs of $200 to $300 million per year (Danovaro et al. 2017).
However, global collective action to save oceans and coasts should not just come from governments. The private sector must also contribute through investment and financing. It is estimated that major companies in ocean industries could raise an additional $83–$186 billion each year for marine conservation investment, which would also benefit their financial interests and markets (Barbier 2023). These additional investments could meet some of the key funding needs for marine conservation, restoration, and sustainable management globally.
Specific industries could also target their investments to key environmental improvements. For example, the shipping industry – comprising container shipping, ship building and repair, port activities, and marine equipment and construction – should be contributing to the $77 billion required each year to decarbonise maritime shipping (Konar and Ding 2020). Offshore oil and gas could offset its own greenhouse gas emissions by investing in mangrove conservation and restoration and other blue carbon actions, and cruise tourism could devote 10% of its revenues to helping expand marine protected areas as well as the conservation and restoration of coral reefs and other estuarine and coastal habitats (Barbier 2023).
In sum, more comprehensive cooperation between the international community, national governments, and the private sector is required to develop global policies to protect vulnerable coastal populations and the deep sea, and especially to bridge the funding gap for marine conservation. The major ocean industries have the most to gain from such conservation; consequently, they should contribute more to preserving, protecting, and restoring the marine capital that is vital to their businesses.
