Sustainable ocean economies require specific capacities, which can be challenging to develop. This chapter makes recommendations on the role of development co-operation in building these capacities. It outlines the broad range of capacity needs that development co-operation providers can support. The chapter also highlights the evolving nature of the sustainable ocean economy, recommending that capacity development efforts adopt a long-term perspective. Finally, it identifies ways in which partnerships—especially with holders of traditional knowledge—can accelerate capacity development.
Promoting Sustainable Ocean Economies
Guidance for Development Co-operation
Abstract
Although capacity constraints are not unique to the sustainable ocean economy, the specificities of the ocean amplify capacity challenges. This is partly explained by the nascency of the sustainable ocean economy as a policy issue, as well as its rapidly changing nature, both due to economic transformations (e.g. emergence of new sectors) and policy shifts (e.g. decarbonisation of maritime transport). These features also mean that carrying out capacity development effectively is not straightforward
For capacity development to be effective, it needs to be holistic and strategic, partner country-owned and demand-driven, focused on longer-term outcomes, and inclusive (Figure 5.1) (OECD, 2023[1]). The three recommendations below reflect these principles and illustrate how they apply in the ocean space. The first highlights the broad range of capacity needs for a sustainable ocean economy, recognising, nonetheless, country-specificities. The second calls for the need for a long-term view to capacity development, especially given the forward-looking nature of many ocean priorities. The third emphasises inclusive partnerships and traditional knowledge as the bedrock of effective capacity development for a sustainable ocean economy.
Source: Adapted from OECD (2012[2]), Supporting Partners to Develop their Capacity: 12 Lessons from DAC Peer Reviews, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2012/06/supporting-partners-to-develop-their-capacity_g1g1c1c0/9789264174306-en.pdf.
Use existing strategies as a starting point and co-ordinate with countries to gain a deeper understanding of their needs
Partner countries’ (and regions’) ocean strategies/policies or development plans often outline specific capacity needs. The Blue Pacific 2050 Strategy, for example, singles out the capacity required of Pacific governments and communities to effectively address climate-induced economic and non-economic losses and damages brought on by rapid, extreme and slow onset events (Blue Pacific 2050, n.d.[3]). Meanwhile, Samoa’s development plan, sets out various expected outcomes for a diversified and sustainable economy, and lists a range of output targets, such as improving the productivity of fisheries (Samoa Ministry of Finance, n.d.[4]). Further, the Indonesia Blue Economy Roadmap (2023-2045) presents an overview of its priority ocean economy sectors and SDG 14 Goals, such as the sustainable management and protection of marine and coastal ecosystems (Kementerian PPN/Bappenas, 2023[5]). These elements signal where capacity development may be needed.
When such plans are missing, or are incomplete or unclear about capacity needs, close co-ordination with partner countries (and regions) is needed. Without this, research shows there can be misalignment between provider and partner country priorities capacity efforts to promote a sustainable ocean economy. In a survey of countries in the Asia Pacific, the top three capacity needs identified by partner countries (e.g. skilled human resources, institutional frameworks, and access to data) were ranked lower, sometimes considerably, by development co-operation providers (United Nations ESCAP, 2019[6]). Co-ordination can help avoid any such misunderstandings.
Recognise that ocean-related capacity needs cut across sectors
While the precise capacity needs vary according to the context, several common areas emerge. Some capacity needs are sector-specific. For example, in the ocean-based renewable energy sector, capacity is needed for environmental and marine impact assessments; fabrication, transport and installation of marine energy infrastructure; as well as in data and computer infrastructure for weather forecast and modelling of ocean patterns (Shackeroff Theisen, 2016[7]). However, many capacity needs are cross-sectoral, touching on familiar issues like access to finance, literacy and innovation. In these cases, existing avenues to deliver capacity development may prove useful, such as capacity development offered by the vertical climate funds (which also support activities in the sustainable ocean economy) to alleviate issues with accessing finance (Independent High-Level Expert Group, 2024[8]). Table 5.1 presents an indicative list of capacity needs areas and corresponding descriptions/examples
Source: UNESCO (2024[9]), Ocean Literacy for all, https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/ocean-literacy-all-0; Wenhai et al (2019[10]), Successful Blue, Frontiers in Marine Science, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00261; Sumaila et al (2020[11]), Ocean Finance: Financing the Transition to a Sustainable Ocean Economy, https://oceanpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Ocean-Finance-Full-Paper.pdf.
Consider the critical role of data and technology in the sustainable ocean economy transition
Many sustainable ocean economy opportunities in developing countries are stymied by a lack of technology and data, and risks can be exacerbated, especially in emerging ocean economy sectors. For example, new findings have prompted a growing number of commercial biotechnology applications, from anticancer treatments to cosmetics and industrial enzymes (OECD, 2020[12]). However, the capacity to undertake genomic research and to access and use the massive amounts of data relating to marine genetic resources is inequitably distributed between countries, with developing countries at a disadvantage (Blasiak et al., 2020[13]). These data and technology shortfalls also apply to the assessment of risks arising from using biotechnologies (Blasiak et al., 2020[13]).
Data and technology are equally important for established sectors and ocean conservation. Developing tourism satellite accounts, a useful tool for tourism policymaking, requires an array of data from conventional (e.g. official administrative data) to unstructured (e.g. social media data) data sources. More broadly, transformative technological change (i.e. artificial intelligence, robotics) is expected to reshape even traditional ocean economy sectors, rendering technology and data key to their long-run viability.
Development co-operation can support access to affordable innovation and technologies to enable developing countries to diversify their ocean economy in sustainable ways. It can support developing countries to develop, own, and use new ocean-related technology, building on local knowledge. Technology transfer to developing countries and capacity development can be key for promoting international equity and protecting marine biodiversity (Österblom et al., 2020[14]; Minas, 2018[15]). Supporting developing countries’ investments in science and technology can also be a useful tool for climate change adaptation.
Build capacity required to meet global commitments and adapt to economic transformations
It is essential that capacity development activities take into account major global transitions (e.g. decarbonisation of maritime transport efforts), treaties (e.g. the BBNJ Agreement), and advances in ocean observation. Capacity development efforts require time and foresight. By aligning activities with these global and regional developments, countries can ensure that their capacity development strategies remain relevant, forward-looking and equipped to address the rapidly changing demands of the sustainable ocean economy.
Providers can prepare developing countries to meet the new or modified capacity requirements induced by policy-driven transformations (e.g. global plastics treaty, KMGBF, IMO target for maritime decarbonisation). These needs range from government capacities for implementing treaties and enforcing policies, firms’ capacities to adapt to changing environmental standards, as well as research capacities to monitor progress and account for marine resources (International Science Council, 2023[16]). Specifically, in the maritime transport sector, facilitating a net-zero transition requires adequate training and knowledge on shipbuilding, repair and retrofitting, terminal infrastructure and operational equipment for ports to produce and safely use renewable fuels (e.g. advanced biofuels, biomethane, hydrogen, methanol and ammonia), as well as knowledge and expertise on carbon pricing mechanisms (IRENA, 2021[17]).1
The economic transformations in the ocean economy, whether they reflect global changes (e.g. digitalisation) or ocean-specific (e.g. growth of specific sectors) ones, also warrant consideration. New and emerging ocean economic sectors require capacities that include robust regulatory frameworks, access to cutting-edge technologies and skilled expertise. One noteworthy area of support is strengthening developing countries’ expertise in new commercial opportunities stemming from novel sectors. Such support should also focus on assisting developing countries to assess the risks and potential gains from new market opportunities, including by involving coastal communities.
Adapt capacity development programmes to deliver long-term results
Capacity development is a gradual process that requires sustained effort over time through long-term funding commitments. Many ocean activities require long-term commitments in capacity development if they are to be successful. For example, mangrove conservation and restoration ideally requires more than 20 years (Beeston, 2023[18]). Moreover, when working with Indigenous peoples and local communities, building trust and relationships to ensure sustainable programme development requires time and long-term partnerships (Strand et al., 2024[19]). By committing to long-term approaches, development co-operation providers ensure that initiatives are given the time needed to fully embed and mature, leading to more enduring and resilient outcomes (Khan, Mfitumukiza and Huq, 2020[20]). One example of a successful long-term commitment to ocean health is USAID’s work in the Philippines, which has been ongoing since 1996. New projects supporting coastal management and sustainable fisheries are informed by previous interventions and are progressively scaled up based on local needs, thereby ensuring the long-term success of the project and the development of local capacities.
The impacts of certain capacity development activities can take a long time to appear. One example is efforts to increase ocean literacy among young children. Research shows that there has been limited attention devoted to the ocean in education curricula, including at the primary level (Freitas et al., 2024[21]). However, promoting ocean literacy and awareness, especially from a young age, can strengthen ocean stewardship and promote long-term ocean sustainability (Visbeck, 2018[22]). Development co-operation providers can support this, for example, through training teachers in ocean issues or through policy support to embed ocean studies in school curricula (Table 5.1).
While long-term funding for capacity development is desired, it may not always be feasible; in such cases, an exit strategy is vital. This can be done through legacy partners. By integrating local partners, such as universities, in the project cycle, they can cultivate knowledge about the project and retain capacity even after funding ends (Rokitzki and Hofemeier, 2021[23]). Another way to ensure the long-term financial viability of sustainable ocean economy projects is by encouraging private sector engagement and innovative funding mechanisms (FAO, 2024[24]). The private sector can act both as a funding partner and as a contributor to capacity development efforts, bringing specialised knowledge. Finally, strong and effective linkages developed early in the project cycle to connect project beneficiaries with government entities and other stakeholders can ensure continued access to resources, capacity development and motivation after the provider exits (Coates Jennifer et al., 2016[25]).
Monitoring and evaluation practices can be adapted to assess long-term impacts. Quantitative output indicators (e.g. number of workshops) might not fully capture the progress or effectiveness of capacity development activities. For instance, a workshop to train fishers in sustainable practices might have no lasting positive impact if those attending have no access to tools and equipment. By expanding evaluations to include qualitative and context-specific outcomes, more effective outcome measurements can be achieved. For example, outcome measures for an ocean-related activity could include the impact of the programme on the positive effects of partnerships, improved connections or changed attitudes and behaviour (Rokitzki and Hofemeier, 2021[23]). As a specific example, when evaluating ocean researchers undergoing training on research vessels, in addition to the specific research skills learned, a non-traditional metric could be the connections made among the researchers during the trip, which led to long-term collaborations.
Embedding capacity development as a core component in ocean programmes and policies enables stakeholders to retain and scale the knowledge, skills, and mechanisms necessary for effective ocean management in the long term. Mainstreaming capacity development activities in the ocean ensures that new capacities are developed while integrating existing ones, thereby fostering the long-term success of programmes (Coates Jennifer et al., 2016[25]). In addition, mainstreaming capacity helps avoid capacity development being treated as a supplementary element and ensures that all interventions contribute to developing the skills, knowledge, and institutions necessary for sustainable development (Rokitzki and Hofemeier, 2021[23]).
Ground ocean-related capacity development in local structures, marrying traditional knowledge and modern science
There is a need for local engagement in all stages of the capacity development process (i.e. planning, implementation, monitoring). Inclusive processes respect cultural and geographical diversity, and ensure the integration, valuation and engagement of diverse governance frameworks, value systems and knowledge to reflect the diverse needs and perspectives of all stakeholders (Wehi et al., 2021[26]), (Strand, 2024[27]). Inclusive capacity development processes ensure that policies and strategies are culturally relevant, responsive to the unique needs of coastal communities and incorporate ocean resources sustainably (O’Connor et al., 2024[28]). Examples of inclusive capacity development activities in the sustainable ocean economy include providing training in local languages, adopting accessible technologies and using culturally-relevant learning methods (UNESCO-IOC, 2021[29]). Box 5.1 presents examples of this from Guatemala and Vanuatu.
Working with and strengthening local academic institutions can be particularly fruitful. In addition to engaging researchers in the design and implementation of capacity development activities, providers can support academia-led ocean conservation and restoration programmes; enable local researchers to publish in peer-reviewed journals; and fund internships, secondments and fellowships.
Integrating traditional knowledge on the ocean with modern science is a key feature of inclusive capacity development. Such hybrid approaches are increasingly prevalent in the field of ocean observation. Coastal populations have long been stewards of coastal land and ocean resources, cultivating knowledge that can complement and enrich information gleaned from modern ocean observation systems (Proulx et al., 2021[30]). The Aha Honua Coastal Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration marks a formal recognition of the need for co-ordination and mutual respect between the two knowledge systems (Proulx et al., 2021[30]). The marriage of traditional ecological knowledge and contemporary approaches can also be seen in the management of ocean resources. For example, the Trochus fisheries in Cook Islands and Vanuatu are managed through a hybrid customary-tenure systems and modern rights-based systems (Friedlander, 2018[31]).
Capacity sharing for locally embedded early warning systems in Guatemala
Trocaire, the Irish implementing agency, worked with local partners (e.g., communities, municipalities, academics, local authorities) to develop an early warning system in Guatemala. Key success factors for the project include an assessment of early warning system needs, partnering with the Galileo University in Guatemala to build on their expertise in designing, testing and setting up early warning systems, as well as the national government institution for disaster risk reduction and a local Caritas member (Pastoral Social de San Marcos), which supports communities in their disaster risk adaptation.
The project strengthened disaster risk reduction mechanisms and established and trained community level co-ordinators in disaster risk reduction. Community level coordinators themselves decide whether to install an early warning system based on contextual knowledge about the location. The long-term success of the project is ensured through collaboration and building on existing capacities and expertise of various local stakeholders.
Lessons from 15 community-based adaptation projects in Vanuatu
1. Community-driven projects yield lasting benefits. For example, a crown-of-thorns starfish cleanup on an entire island succeeded by mobilising local strengths and engaging the whole community.
2. Projects led by local institutions are more sustainable. Local government and NGO-led initiatives in seawall construction and coral restoration continued to succeed with strong local support after project completion.
3. Implementers’ quick assessments and agendas can hinder long-term project success. Superficial project assessments led to unsustainable projects like forestry and honey-bee programmes, as they lacked community-driven continuity.
4. Donor restrictions can limit local involvement, leading to project failure. Donors’ criteria for water projects restricted community input and resulted in operational issues and conflicts between communities.
5. Lack of community ownership often results in unsustainable outcomes. Externally designed projects failed when they ignored local needs and input, leaving communities unable to maintain them effectively.
6. Top-down solutions fail when they ignore local culture and beliefs.
7. Project benefits often go to influential community members, deepening inequalities. Repeated involvement of certain elites in projects monopolised resources and opportunities, reinforcing local power imbalances
Source: Trocaire (2023[32]), Reinforcing Capacity Sharing and Mutual Learning Between Local and International Humanitarian Actors, https://voiceeu.org/publications/reinforcing-capacity-sharing-and-mutual-learning-between-local-and-international-humanitarian-actors-trocaire.pdf; Westoby et al., (2020[33]), “From community-based to locally led adaptation: Evidence from Vanuatu”, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01294-8.
Leverage science and knowledge networks to accelerate capacity development for the ocean economy
Ocean knowledge networks and research networks serve as vital platforms for collaboration among ministries, universities, research institutes, foundations, NGOs and other stakeholders. Enhancing knowledge and understanding of the ocean is critical to ensure equitable access to its benefits and to promote the conservation and restoration of marine resources. Learning and science exchange networks and local mentorship initiatives have been repeatedly emphasised as essential for fostering long-lasting and sustainable capacity development (Shackeroff Theisen, 2016[7]). Knowledge and science networks bring various groups together to develop solutions to ocean-related issues, combining their experience and expertise. Collaborative initiatives thrive by adapting to unique local, national, and regional needs, ensuring meaningful and lasting outcomes (UNESCO-IOC, 2021[29]).
Development co-operation providers could support countries in establishing further strategic local, national and regional partnerships and networks to support ocean science and knowledge. Partnerships can come in different forms and can strengthen knowledge-management systems within and between networks and countries (OECD, 2023[1]). Support can be in the form of resources and technological innovation, as well as partnership building to develop scientific knowledge, build and share infrastructure and enable the integration of local and Indigenous knowledge (UNESCO-IOC, 2021[29]). A list of existing initiatives and networks related to ocean science and knowledge generation can be found in Table 5.2.
Pool capacities across countries as appropriate
Development co-operation providers can help partner countries to pool their resources to overcome capacity constraints. While a single country may not have all the capacities needed to address a specific challenge in the ocean, a group of countries in the region, or with shared economic or cultural similarities (e.g. SIDS), can pool their capacities. A good example of this is the SIDS Data Hub, which enhances the institutional and technical capacity of SIDS by providing access to data, technologies, training, and global expertise, creating a sustainable repository of comprehensive data (SIDS Global Data Hub, 2024[40]).
References
[18] Beeston, M. (2023), Best practice guidelines for mangrove restoration, Editors, http://www.yokedesign.studio.
[3] Blue Pacific 2050 (n.d.), “2050 Strategy: Implementation Plan 2023-2030. Setting the Foundations Towards Transformational Change Phase I-2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent”, https://forumsec.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/2050-Strategy-Implementation-Plan_2023-2030.pdf.
[25] Coates Jennifer et al. (2016), Sustaining Development: Results from a Study of Sustainability and Exit Strategies among Development Food Assistance Projects - Kenya Country Study, Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance III Project (FANTA), Washington, D.C., https://www.fantaproject.org/sites/default/files/resources/Kenya-Exit-Strategies-Report-July2016_0.pdf.
[21] Freitas, C. et al. (2024), “Diving into a sea of knowledge: empowering teachers to enhance ocean literacy in primary schools through an ocean education training program”, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 31/2, pp. 262-283, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2024.2357342.
[31] Friedlander, A. (2018), “Marine conservation in Oceania: Past, present, and future”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 135, pp. 139-149, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.064.
[8] Independent High-Level Expert Group (2024), Accelerating Sustainable Finance for Emerging Markets and Developing Economies, https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2000/10/G20-IHLEG-VCEF-Review.pdf.
[16] International Science Council (2023), Closing the Plastic Capacity Gaps: Science-based Actions for Effective Agreements, https://council.science/blog/closing-the-plastic-capacity-gaps/.
[17] IRENA (2021), A Pathway to Decarbonise the Shipping Sector by 2050, International Renewable Energy Agency, https://www.irena.org/Publications/2021/Oct/A-Pathway-to-Decarbonise-the-Shipping-Sector-by-2050.
[5] Kementerian PPN/Bappenas (2023), Indonesia Blue Economy Roadmap, Ministry of National Development Planning/National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS) of the Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta, https://aipalync.org/storage/documents/main/eng-indonesia-blue-economy-roadmap-ebook-1714456651_1723718648.pdf.
[20] Khan, M., D. Mfitumukiza and S. Huq (2020), “Capacity building for implementation of nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement”, Climate Policy, Vol. 20/4, pp. 499-510, https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1675577.
[13] Lubchenco, J. and P. Haugan (eds.) (2020), “The Ocean Genome: Conservation and the Fair, Equitable and Sustainable Use of Marine Genetic Resources”, Springer, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16277-0_4.
[15] Minas, S. (2018), “Marine technology transfer under a BBNJ Treaty: A case for transnational network cooperation”, AJIL Unbound, pp. 144-149, https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2018.46.
[24] Nations, F. (ed.) (2024), How to design capacity development interventions and ensure their sustainability, https://www.fao.org/capacity-development/resources/practical-tools/design-capacity-development/en/.
[39] Nations, F. (ed.) (2024), Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing, https://www.fao.org/iuu-fishing/capacity-development/resource-material/en/.
[34] Ocean Expert (2024), Ocean Expert: A Directory of Marine and Freshwater Professionals, https://oceanexpert.org/.
[28] O’Connor, R. et al. (2024), “Power and participation: A systematic review of marine protected area engagement through participatory science Methods”, Marine Policy, Vol. 163, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106133.
[1] OECD (2023), Capacity Development for Climate Action in Small Island Developing States, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD(2023)33/en/pdf.
[12] OECD (2020), Sustainable Ocean for All: Harnessing the Benefits of Sustainable Ocean Economies for Developing Countries, The Development Dimension, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bede6513-en.
[2] OECD (2012), Supporting Partners to Develop their Capacity: 12 Lessons from DAC Peer Reviews, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2012/06/supporting-partners-to-develop-their-capacity_g1g1c1c0/9789264174306-en.pdf.
[38] OKEANO CSA (2024), All-Atlantic Ocean Research and Innovation Alliance, https://allatlanticocean.org/all-atlantic-joint-actions/all-atlantic-ocean-capacity-development-and-training-platform/.
[14] Österblom, H. et al. (2020), Towards Ocean Equity, World Resources Institute, https://oceanpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Towards-Ocean-Equity.pdf.
[30] Proulx, M. et al. (2021), “Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge and ocean observing: a review of successful partnerships”, Frontiers in Marine Science, Vol. 8, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.703938.
[23] Rokitzki, M. and A. Hofemeier (2021), Unleashing the Potential of Capacity Development for Climate Action. Fixing a Broken Link on the Pathway to Transformational Change, GIZ, https://www.plan-adapt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/210831_Discussion-Paper_Unleashing-the-Potential-of-Capacity-Development-for-Climate-Action.pdf.
[4] Samoa Ministry of Finance (n.d.), Pathway For The Development Of Samoa. FY2021/22 - FY2025/26, https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/sam219207.pdf.
[7] Shackeroff Theisen, J. (2016), Capacity Development for Oceans, Coasts, and the 2030 Agenda, IASS Policy Brief, 2016, 3, https://doi.org/10.2312/iass.2016.017.
[40] SIDS Global Data Hub (2024), SIDS Global Data Hub, https://sids.sdg.org/.
[27] Strand, M. (2024), “Advancing transdisciplinarity as an epistemology for more ethical engagements with fishing communities”, ICES Journal of Marine Science, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsae148.
[19] Strand, M. et al. (2024), Co-producing Sustainable Ocean Plans with Indigenous and traditional knowledge holders, World Resources Institute, https://doi.org/10.69902/8f1075e8.
[11] Sumaila, R. et al. (2020), Ocean Finance: Financing the Transition to a Sustainable Ocean Economy, High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, https://oceanpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Ocean-Finance-Full-Paper.pdf.
[32] Trocaire (2023), Reinforcing Capacity Sharing and Mutual Learning Between Local and International Humanitarian Actors, https://voiceeu.org/publications/reinforcing-capacity-sharing-and-mutual-learning-between-local-and-international-humanitarian-actors-trocaire.pdf.
[35] UNESCI/IOC (2024), Ocean Best Practices, https://www.oceanbestpractices.org/ocean-best-practices-systems/about-us/.
[9] UNESCO (2024), Ocean Literacy for All, https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/ocean-literacy-all-0.
[36] UNESCO/IODE (2024), Ocean Data Information System, https://odis.org/.
[37] UNESCO/OBIS (2024), Ocean Biodiversity Information System, https://obis.org/.
[29] UNESCO-IOC (2021), The United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development, UNESCO, Paris (IOC Ocean Decade Series, 20.), https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377082.
[41] United Nations Climate Change (2024), About Carbon Pricing, https://unfccc.int/about-us/regional-collaboration-centres/the-ciaca/about-carbon-pricing.
[6] United Nations ESCAP (2019), Assessment Of Capacity Development Needs Of The Countries In Asia And The Pacific For The Implementation Of SDG 14, United Nations ESCAP, https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/ESCAP%20Ocean%20Assessment_0.pdf.
[22] Visbeck, M. (2018), “Ocean science research is key for a sustainable future”, Nature Communications, Vol. 9/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03158-3.
[26] Wehi, P. et al. (2021), “Transforming Antarctic management and policy with an Indigenous Māori lens”, Nat Ecol Evol 5, pp. 1055-1059, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01466-4.
[10] Wenhai, L. et al. (2019), “Successful Blue Economy Examples With an Emphasis on International Perspectives”, Frontiers in Marine Science, Vol. 6, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00261.
[33] Westoby, R. et al. (2020), “From community-based to locally led adaptation: Evidence from Vanuatu”, Ambio, Vol. 49/9, pp. 1466-1473, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01294-8.
← 1. Carbon pricing curbs greenhouse gas emissions by placing a fee on emitting GHGs, and/or offering an incentive for emitting less. The price signal created shifts consumption and investment patterns, making economic development compatible with climate protection. See https://unfccc.int/about-us/regional-collaboration-centres/the-ciaca/about-carbon-pricing.