Establishing a Sustainable Development Goal for Oceans and Coasts to Face the Challenges of our Future Ocean

Oceans regulate our climate, provide us with natural resources such as food, materials, substances, and energy and are essential for international trade, recreational, and cultural activities. Free access to and availability of ocean resources and services, together with human development, have put strong pressures on marine ecosystems, ranging from overfishing and reckless resource extraction to various channels of careless pollution. International cooperation and negotiations are required to protect the marine environment and use marine resources in a way that the needs of future generations will be met. For that purpose, developing and agreeing on a Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Oceans and Coasts could be an essential element for sustainable ocean management. The SDGs will build upon the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and replace them by 2015. Even though ensuring environmental sustainability is one of the eight MDG goals, the ocean is not explicitly included. Furthermore, the creation of a comprehensive underlying set of oceanic sustainability indicators would help assessing the current status of marine systems, diagnose on-going trends, and provide information for forward-locking and sustainable ocean governance

MONALISA 2.0 and the sea traffic management - a concept creating the need for new maritime information standards and software solutions

Postprint (published version

The governance of Singapore’s knowledge clusters: off shore marine business and waterhub

Based on two case studies of knowledge clusters (off shore marine/rig business and water hub) in Singapore, the paper illustrates the importance of good knowledge governance in creating robust and value-creating knowledge clusters. We begin by defining key terms used such as knowledge clusters, hubs and governance, followed by a short historical account of good knowledge governance for Singapore’s development. The two cases studies of knowledge clusters presented here include (i) the offshore oil rig business (Keppel) which we posit as an example of innovative value creation based on sophisticated fabrication methods and R&D as well as (ii) the island republic’s dynamic and rapidly emerging, global hydrohub called ‘WaterHub’. We examine the structural characteristics of both clusters, assess their progress based on the cluster lifecycle literature, highlight key governance enablers required to create and sustain such competitive hubs and draw conclusions for K4D latecomers

Coordination of infrastructure development : some international comparisons

This report presents the findings from a desktop review into how governments across a selection of countries coordinate infrastructure development by working with the industry. The selected countries included the UK (Northern Ireland was examined separately from mainland UK), Canada, Germany, Japan and South Korea. The goal is to identify alternative means of coordinating infrastructure development at the government level, with a view to assist the Institution of Civil Engineers to make the case for a more strategic approach to planning and delivery of infrastructure. The need for this report derives from growing complexity in the way infrastructure development programmes are procured, and the shifting role of government from provider of infrastructure development to enabler of the process of delivery. Thus, an opportunity arose to compare alternative arrangements of government coordination. There were similarities of political governance landscape between the investigated countries regarding strategies of infrastructure delivery. Differences exist however in the way resources are allocated and decisions made regarding infrastructure development. A potential for greater transparency and collaboration between public and private sector was identified. In Germany, for example, local governments enjoy a great deal of autonomy in defining infrastructural requirements, even though the definition of requirements has to align with high-level planning principles at the regional, national and European levels. Delivery of infrastructure development is devolved to the local governments working with a range of stakeholders from both the public and private sectors with funding provided by regional allocations. By contrast, infrastructure development is coordinated by a single high-level government department Canada, Japan and South Korea. The make-up of this department varies across the three countries, with subtle differences in the roles and responsibilities of each constituent part. Nonetheless, the benefits of such an approach include a whole-systems view in decision-making and a somewhat simpler, more transparent way of funding allocation. Furthermore, in the case of Japan and South Korea, resources can be more effectively channelled towards advancing research and development related to infrastructure development capacity and more clarity in terms of skills development. The UK, on the other hand, has a fragmented approach in addressing infrastructure development, with a continuously evolving system of government departments and agencies having some form of influence on determining infrastructural requirements. In order to redress some of the challenges with such fragmentation, the situation in Northern Ireland differs slightly with the formation of a Strategic Investment Board Limited charged with overseeing infrastructure programmes, making delivery more transparent

Corporate sustainability reporting index and baseline data for the cruise industry

Sustainability policies and corporate reports demonstrate the impacts cruise companies acknowledge as their responsibility, and the actions put in place to address them. This paper develops a corporate social responsibility index based on the Global Reporting Initiative, with industry specific additions including labor and human rights, health and safety, and environmental and economic aspects. Companies disclose more management than performance data, which is typical of early stages of development. Companies disclosing less information focus on soft indicators which are easy to mimic and demonstrate posturing. Items disclosed tend to be marginal to the core of the business, have a positive economic impact or pre-empt sector regulation. Reports echo the voice of the corporations and not the demands of stakeholders. Institutional isomorphism has not influenced a homogenization in reporting, with only the largest firms reporting at this stage