The blue economy - cultural livelihood - ecosystem conservation triangle : the African experience

Publications costs were supported by the University of St Andrews to IO-Y and the New England Aquarium-Marine Conservation and Action Fund (MCAF) to NK.The concept of Blue Economy (BE) is recognised as central for sustainable development that incorporates socio-economic benefits and ecological conservation. However, in Africa, much of the emphasis on BE is placed on economic gains; as a result, traditional livelihoods and small-scale local operations are outcompeted by international corporations and government initiatives, with little or no regard for social inclusion and environmental sustainability. We argue that successful BE initiatives in Africa accentuate the involvement of local communities and promote sustenance of the natural ecosystem. We define success in terms of the sustainability balance among ecological, social and economic aspects. Drawing on extensive expert experiences, observational data and literature review of case studies across the African continent, we highlight two critical findings. First, large scale BE initiatives prioritise economic gains at the expense of environmental degradation and the exclusion of local communities. Second, using the full spectrum sustainability (FSS) evaluation, we show that successful BE interventions considered ecological, economic, socio-cultural and institutional objectives. Drawing on these case studies, we propose the adoption of a collaborative framework which amalgamates the top-down and bottom-up approaches to BE management. Achieving the goal of successful blue growth in Africa is now even more challenged by the implications of COVID-19 on the BE sectors. Reimagining and rebuilding a resilient BE in Africa post-coronavirus will require a strong political commitment to promoting a balance between economic, social and environmental benefits in line with the African Union's Agenda 2063 and the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Ocean accounts as an approach to foster, monitor, and report progress towards sustainable development in a changing ocean – The Systems and Flows Model

Ocean systems are changing due to natural and anthropogenic processes. Ocean resource use is changing as coastal nations have emphasised the opportunity to advance ocean activities to foster economic growth and food, energy, and job security, facilitated by new technologies. The expansion and diversification of ocean-dependent activities increase pressures on the ocean. To ensure current and future opportunities arising from ocean resource use activities, it is critical to prioritise the sustainable development of ocean activities, balancing and bridging ocean health, wealth, and the equitable distribution of opportunities. Historically, economic indicators guide economic expansion, investment, and strategic planning. However, such monetary metrics provide limited information on resource-use sustainability or income distribution, benefits and costs (sectoral inclusivity), hampering their utilisation for environmental and societal decision making. Accordingly, accounting systems that go beyond economic metrics alone and integrate societal, economic and environmental information to measure and manage progress towards ocean sustainable development are essential. This integration is best achieved by incorporating these three domains into a consistent and standard ocean accounting (OA) framework based on established and novel accounting standards. This publication describes the novel OA framework and its components; highlights its use opportunities, benefits, and challenges; and presents the Systems and Flows Model (SaFM) for OA. The SaFM represents the OA framework as a system of systems, evidencing the various accounting standards it integrates and the flows between them

The blue economy - cultural livelihood - ecosystem conservation triangle:the African experience

The concept of Blue Economy (BE) is recognised as central for sustainable development that incorporates socio-economic benefits and ecological conservation. However, in Africa, much of the emphasis on BE is placed on economic gains; as a result, traditional livelihoods and small-scale local operations are outcompeted by international corporations and government initiatives, with little or no regard for social inclusion and environmental sustainability. We argue that successful BE initiatives in Africa accentuate the involvement of local communities and promote sustenance of the natural ecosystem. We define success in terms of the sustainability balance among ecological, social and economic aspects. Drawing on extensive expert experiences, observational data and literature review of case studies across the African continent, we highlight two critical findings. First, large scale BE initiatives prioritise economic gains at the expense of environmental degradation and the exclusion of local communities. Second, using the full spectrum sustainability (FSS) evaluation, we show that successful BE interventions considered ecological, economic, socio-cultural and institutional objectives. Drawing on these case studies, we propose the adoption of a collaborative framework which amalgamates the top-down and bottom-up approaches to BE management. Achieving the goal of successful blue growth in Africa is now even more challenged by the implications of COVID-19 on the BE sectors. Reimagining and rebuilding a resilient BE in Africa post-coronavirus will require a strong political commitment to promoting a balance between economic, social and environmental benefits in line with the African Union's Agenda 2063 and the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals

Equity and justice should underpin the discourse on tipping points

Radical and quick transformations towards sustainability will be fundamental to achieving a more sustainable future. However, deliberate interventions to reconfigure systems will result in winners and losers, with the potential for greater or lesser equity and justice outcomes. Positive tipping points (PTPs) have been proposed as interventions in complex systems with the aim to (a) reduce the likelihood of negative Earth system tipping points and/or (b) increase the likelihood of achieving just social foundations. However, many narratives around PTPs often do not take into account the entire spectrum of impacts the proposed alternatives could have or still rely on narratives that maintain current unsustainable behaviours and marginalize many people (i.e. do not take b into account). One such example is the move from petrol-based to electric vehicles. An energy transition that remains based on natural resource inputs from the Global South must be unpacked with an equity and justice lens to understand the true cost of this transition. There are two arguments why a critical engagement with these and other similar proposals needs to be made. First, the idea of transitioning through a substitution (e.g. of fuel) while maintaining the system structure (e.g. of private vehicles) may not necessarily be conceived as the kind of radical transformation being called for by global scientific bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Second, and probably more importantly, the question of positive for whom, positive where, and positive how must be considered. In this paper, we unpack these narratives using a critical decolonial view from the south and outline their implications for the concept of tipping points

WTO must ban harmful fisheries subsidies

Sustainably managed wild fisheries support food and nutritional security, livelihoods, and cultures (1). Harmful fisheries subsidies—government payments that incentivize overcapacity and lead to overfishing—undermine these benefits yet are increasing globally (2). World Trade Organization (WTO) members have a unique opportunity at their ministerial meeting in November to reach an agreement that eliminates harmful subsidies (3). We—a group of scientists spanning 46 countries and 6 continents—urge the WTO to make this commitment..