This chapter presents recommendations on the goals of development co-operation for a sustainable ocean economy. Recognising sustainable use and conservation as the guiding principle, the chapter outlines four key goals for development co-operation to pursue: ocean-based economic development and resilience; ocean equity; healthy marine and coastal ecosystems; and ocean-based climate action. It also provides guidance on how to manage the inherent interlinkages between these goals, as well as their connections to broader sustainable development issues. Finally, the chapter emphasises the need to tailor support for these goals to individual country contexts.
Promoting Sustainable Ocean Economies
Guidance for Development Co-operation
Abstract
Collectively and coherently advancing a sustainable ocean economy requires a common understanding of what it constitutes. However, since multiple terms (e.g. blue economy, maritime economy, ocean economy) – with different meanings and policy implications - are used interchangeably, such a shared sense is missing. Although previous OECD work has tried to address this ambiguity, by providing a measurement framework for the ocean economy (OECD, 2016[1]) and official development assistance for a sustainable ocean economy (OECD, 2020[2]), neither has provided a guiding framework for the intended outcomes, or goals, of development co-operation for a sustainable ocean economy.
This chapter offers a framework to address this gap. The first recommendation (discussed in Section 2.1) builds on the OECD report Sustainable Ocean for All: Harnessing the Benefits of Sustainable Ocean Economies for Developing Countries (OECD, 2020[2]) to define the four pillars of a sustainable ocean economy, which also represent the recommended goals for development co-operation. For each goal, the section outlines specific areas to which development co-operation can channel efforts (see a synthesis in Figure 2.4). The focus is on issues specific to the ocean economy, although it is clear that the goals are also impacted by issues outside the ocean economy. For example, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions pose the greatest threat to the health of ocean ecosystems (Rogers and Laffoley, 2013[3]; Gaines et al., 2019[4]), meaning that global action to tackle climate change, even outside the ocean domain, contributes to one of the goals of development co-operation for a sustainable ocean economy. The second recommendation (discussed in Section 2.2) recognises the interlinked nature of the four goals, while the third recommendation (in Section 2.3) focuses on their country-specificity. Together, they guide providers on how to promote the goals in a coherent way while bearing in mind the critical principle of partner country-ownership.
A sustainable ocean economy involves managing the ocean in order to collectively promote economic development and resilience, equity, healthy ecosystems, and climate action. These four elements constitute the goals of development co-operation for a sustainable ocean economy and provide a common framework with which to align development co-operation efforts (Figure 2.1). For instance, at the strategic planning stage, the goals can inform providers’ overall vision for development co-operation for a sustainable ocean economy. At the project or programme level, the goals can provide a basis for defining theories of change or establishing criteria or typologies for ocean-related projects. For example, providers may choose whether or not to include or exclude potential projects based on their relative contribution to each of the goals.
The four goals broadly reflect the dimensions of sustainability (economic, environmental, and social), as well as existing international frameworks, such as the targets of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14, Life below water. For instance, targets 14.7 (increase the economic benefits from the sustainable use of marine resources), 14.9 (support small-scale fishers), 14.1 (reduce marine pollution), and 14.2 (reduce ocean acidification) parallel the goals of economic development, equity, healthy ecosystems, and climate action, respectively. There are also similarities with multilateral providers’ approaches – through which bilateral providers may channel their efforts –. For instance, the European Investment Bank advances what it calls a “sustainable blue economy” by supporting areas like low-carbon marine solutions and coastal resilience (which echo climate action), as well as preserving and restoring oceans (which echo healthy ecosystems) (EIB, 2024[5]). Meanwhile, the Asian Development Bank’s Healthy Ocean Action Plan lists its focus areas as creating inclusive livelihoods and business opportunities in ocean economy sectors (i.e. economic development and equity), ecosystem management and pollution control (i.e. healthy ecosystems), and sustainable infrastructure (i.e. climate action and healthy ecosystems) (ADB, 2019[6]).
Advance ocean-based economic development and resilience
For many developing countries, ocean-based economic sectors can drive economic development and resilience. Estimates suggest the size of the global ocean economy has doubled in the past 25 years (from USD 1.3 trillion in 1995 to USD 2.6 trillion in 2020 in gross value-added terms) (OECD, 2025[7]). As shown in Figure 2.2, this pace of expansion outpaced the average industry growth rate in the wider economy. However, despite the importance of ocean-based economic activities for livelihoods and employment in developing countries, lower-income countries have generally accounted for a smaller share of global value added (GVA) from the ocean economy. In fact, high income countries accounted for over 50%1 of global ocean economy GVA in 2019 (OECD, 2025[7]). As described in detail below, development co-operation providers can help developing countries harness this untapped potential by:
supporting the use of ocean-based sectors as engines of economic diversification
enabling value creation and addition across the ocean value chain
helping to strengthen sectoral linkages among ocean economy sectors, as well as with the rest of the economy.
Note: Gross value-added chained volume indexes are calculated for each ocean economic activity group and the industry average, with a reference year of 2015 set so that 1995 equals 100 in Panel A and 2020 equals 100 in Panel B. The weighted industry average is measured by calculating relevant industry group level real-terms growth rates, weighting each industry group by the share of its contribution to total overall economy gross value added, and chaining together. Panel B is based on 2020 because it is the first year in which offshore wind and marine renewables began to produce gross value added according to the OECD Ocean Economy Monitor.
Source: OECD (2025[7]), The Ocean Economy to 2050, https://doi.org/10.1787/a9096fb1-en.
The ocean economy can become an engine of economic diversification and structural transformation. Countries heavily dependent on a single or a small number of sectors are more vulnerable to external shocks. For example, the impact of the “COVID-19” pandemic on SIDS, many of which rely heavily on tourism, was more severe than in other developing countries. SIDS saw a GDP contraction of 6.9% on average in 2020, compared with 4.8% for other developing countries (OECD, 2021[8]). Ocean-based industries can allow countries to transition away from a single-sector model, develop the economy, reduce poverty and sustain livelihoods. This is recognised by several developing countries’ ocean economy strategies with Angola representing one good example (2022[9]). If managed sustainably, the rapidly growing aquaculture sector (FAO, 2024[10]), as well as the promising but nascent offshore and ocean-based renewable energy and marine biotechnology industries, all offer opportunities for spurring diversification. However, the technical and financial obstacles facing developing countries in tapping into such opportunities mean that development support is essential (e.g. technology transfer, capacity development, or financing).
Creating and adding value across the ocean economy production processes can enable countries to fully harness the potential of the ocean economy. This is a central priority of many developing countries’ ocean economy policies.2 Development co-operation providers can support countries to identify and implement ways to sustainably add or retain the value of natural resources3 from oceans, seas and coastal areas. A key way of doing this is to support developing countries to better understand their value chains. This involves analysing value chains to pinpoint opportunities and challenges allowing them to maximise and fairly distribute revenue by optimising resource use, minimising waste, enhancing processing, adding value, and improving marketing and distribution (OECD, 2016[1]). For example, adopting circular economy approaches can help reduce waste while enabling firms to capture additional economic value (OECD, 2024[11]). For instance, fish byproducts (e.g. heads, bones, guts, shells) – which are typically discarded due to low consumer demand – can be used to develop new products (e.g. fish oil, fish feed) (Nelluri et al., 2024[12]). Meanwhile, infrastructure investments, such as in energy-efficient cold-chain infrastructure, can help reduce post-harvest food loss and help curtail lost value while reducing environmental footprints (FAO, 2022[13]).
A more resilient ocean economy can be developed by strengthening linkages between ocean-based sectors. There are two different ways of linking sectors. Forward linkages exist when outputs from one sector serve as inputs into other sectors further downstream (e.g. fisheries supplying inputs to food processing or pharmaceuticals) (OECD, 2016[1]). Meanwhile, backward linkages occur when the development of certain industries stimulates supporting industries (e.g. development of sustainable tourism spurring investment in infrastructure or offshore energy) (OECD, 2016[1]). For instance, development co-operation providers, through policy support or private sector development activities, can help link the coastal/cruise tourism sector to the local fisheries/aquaculture sector so that demand from the former is supplied by the latter.
Strengthen ocean equity
Ensuring that the ocean economy benefits all, leaving no one behind, is a question of ocean equity. The benefits from the ocean and exposure to its harms are not distributed evenly within and between countries (Bennett et al., 2021[14]; Claudet et al., 2024[15]). Simultaneously, structural inequities can affect the ocean space, where historically entrenched practices such as discrimination, exclusion and marginalisation, or exploitation4 can negatively affect certain segments of the population, particularly women and girls, Indigenous peoples and local communities (Gill et al., 2023[16]; Österblom et al., 2020[17]). Strengthening equity in the ocean economy requires advancing the three tenets of justice (i.e. recognitional, procedural, and distributional)5. As explained in detail below, development co-operation providers have a role in:
ensuring the equitable distribution of benefits and costs
promoting equitable and participatory decision making
recognising historical and systemic inequities
addressing inter-country inequities.
Managing the distributional consequences of ocean-related initiatives is central to ocean equity. For example, the dispossession of ocean and coastal resources is a recognised risk of ocean-based development (Bennett et al., 2021[14]). This dispossession, apparent across many ocean economy sectors (e.g. fisheries, tourism, aquaculture), can involve the reallocation of ocean-based resources from local communities to elites and external actors (Bennett et al., 2021[14]). Case studies show that it is often tourists or local elites who benefit most from conservation and development programmes related to the ocean, often at the expense of Indigenous peoples and local communities (Gill et al., 2023[16]). There are also documented impacts on the livelihoods of small-scale fishers, where the development of certain ocean economy sectors (e.g. offshore wind) can restrict their access to ocean space (Bennett et al., 2021[14]). Another dimension across which distributional consequences materialise is gender. The “invisibility” of women’s role in the ocean economy (Bennett et al., 2021[14]) means that targeted interventions can ignore the gender dimension and hence exacerbate underlying inequities (see Box 2.1 for a case study of the fisheries sector). Accounting for these distributional consequences is vital for development interventions targeting marine conservation, ocean-based economic development, or climate action to leave no one behind. The DAC Guidance on Gender Equality is a useful resource on the use of gender equality analysis to identify and address distributional consequences that adversely affect women and girls (OECD, 2022[18]).
Although women play a significant role in the ocean economy, the lack of disaggregated data on the ocean economy and the exclusion of women from ocean-related decision-making means that ocean-related initiatives may not be gender-responsive and may perpetuate gender-based inequities.
This is most evident in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors. Existing estimates suggest women account for nearly half of the workforce in the two sectors’ value chain, largely in post-harvesting activities (FAO, 2022[13]). But women’s participation in fisheries and aquaculture is generally informal, often considered an extension of unpaid housework, limited to “low-skilled” tasks, and unstable (FAO, 2022[13]). The informality also implies that women’s importance for and conditions (e.g. wages) in the ocean economy are hidden from official statistics, meaning that gender-based inequities risk being, by default, overlooked in ocean-related initiatives. For example, blue carbon projects do not always account for women’s reliance on mangroves for shellfish harvesting, thereby threatening a source of livelihood (Josse et al., 2019[19]). These issues are exacerbated because women are often excluded from fisheries governance (Crosman et al., 2022[20]), which can lead to a reduced emphasis on gender equality in fisheries-related policy instruments (Lawless et al., 2021[21]).
Promoting equity also requires including all stakeholders in ocean-related decision-making processes (Claudet et al., 2024[15]). Past experiences show that marginalised groups are often excluded from governance processes for ocean resources, such as in marine spatial planning (MSP) (Flannery, Healy and Luna, 2018[22])and fisheries management (Rohe, Schlüter and Ferse, 2018[23]). Even when participatory mechanisms exist, for example in MSP processes, stakeholder consultation may only occur after decisions have been made (Flannery, Healy and Luna, 2018[22]). Akin to other policy domains, exclusionary decision-making can lead to interventions that benefit a few instead of all stakeholders, and for which there is limited public support and buy-in. Several developing countries’ ocean policies, such as the Fiji National Ocean Policy (Republic of Fiji, 2020[24]), have recognised the important role of often-neglected stakeholders (e.g. youth, resource rights-holders). Development co-operation has an important role in promoting inclusiveness in ocean-related decision-making across multiple dimensions (e.g. gender, race, education level, economic status, and religious or ethnic identity) (McDermott, Mahanty and Schreckenberg, 2013[25]). Examples include support for the co-production of ocean planning instruments with Indigenous peoples and local communities (Strand et al., 2024[26]) or using local knowledge to inform siting decisions for place-based interventions, such as watershed interventions for systems health in Fiji (Jupiter et al., 2024[27]).
Recognising systematic inequities in the ocean economy is paramount for achieving ocean equity. These inequities are multidimensional (i.e. social, economic, political, and environmental) and multi-level (i.e. stemming from local, national, and global forces) (Forster et al., 2017[28]) and affect ocean-related development interventions. For example, some MPAs have failed because efforts to engage stakeholders have assumed everyone to be equal, ignoring power asymmetries and the consequent differences in priorities (Crosman et al., 2022[20]). Structural barriers can also dictate who sways funding decisions. Disregarding such power dynamics can lead to efforts that do not align with the sociocultural values, economic realities, and biodiversity priorities of local communities. This is documented in the fisheries sector (Crosman et al., 2022[20]), for example, where power dynamics exist between fishers, traders, and owners. Adapting development co-operation efforts to pre-existing institutional structures, policies, distinct rights, worldviews, knowledge, needs, livelihoods, histories and cultures of different groups is part and parcel of promoting ocean equity6. Development co-operation can also facilitate sustained (rather than one-off) dialogue between stakeholders. For example, in Madagascar, multistakeholder dialogues convened by conservation non-government organisations (NGOs) delved into the structural issues impeding community-led approaches to conservation (Gill et al., 2023[16]).
By accounting for between-country disparities (Figure 2.3), development co-operation can promote ocean equity at a global scale. Evidence indicates that on a global level, access to ocean benefits and resources is distributed unequally. In the marine biotechnology sector, for example, one company has registered patents for 47% of all known marine genetic sequences, thereby exceeding the share of 220 other companies (Blasiak et al., 2018[29]). Exposure to harm and damage from the ocean, such as from climate change and marine pollution (OECD, 2020[2]) is also highly unequal across the world, with developing countries at a strong disadvantage. Between-country inequities are also rooted in historical and colonial legacies, and unequal power and capacity dynamics between countries (Abdullah et al., 2017[30]; Bourguignon, 2015[31]). Development co-operation is well-placed to help alleviate these challenges through financial and capacity support to developing countries. This is especially true for SIDS, whose economies are intimately tied to the ocean (e.g. in terms of livelihoods, connectivity) and who are highly vulnerable to the deterioration of marine ecosystems and ocean-related climate change hazards.
Promote healthy marine and coastal ecosystems
Healthy marine and coastal ecosystems are a precondition for the ocean’s ability to sustain human life. The ocean can be considered healthy if it is “resilient, productive, and diverse” (Franke et al., 2020[32]). This means that coastal and marine ecosystems can recover from a certain level of perturbation, continuing to support a large variety of coastal and marine biodiversity and providing a vast array of ecosystem services. However, multiple anthropocentric pressures on the ocean threaten this biodiversity and erode the ocean’s capacity to provide benefits, including food provision, carbon storage, tourism and recreation, coastal livelihoods and economies, and cultural value (IPCC, 2022[33]). As outlined in detail below, to protect marine and coastal ecosystems, development co-operation providers have a role in:
curbing marine pollution
controlling invasive alien species (IAS)
managing sea and coastal land use change
reducing overfishing and illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing
restoring marine and coastal biodiversity.
Safeguarding the health of marine and coastal ecosystems requires addressing the issue of marine pollution. There are a multitude of sources (both land and ocean-based) and types of pollutants that affect the marine environment. For instance, ocean-based sources like maritime transport can lead to the discharge of oil, sewage, garbage, and noxious and harmful substances (IMO, 1973[34]). Meanwhile, plastic waste can enter the ocean due to mismanagement on land, hurting marine biodiversity, eroding infrastructure, and threatening the well-being of coastal communities (Kaza et al., 2018[35]). Development co-operation providers have an important role to play in addressing these issues. In the case of plastic pollution, support for waste management infrastructure and systems is vital. Canada, for example, has invested CAD 100 million to improve waste management in developing countries as part of its leadership on the Ocean Plastics Charter. Development co-operation providers can also equip partner countries to adopt various plastics-related policy instruments, such as taxes and restrictions on problematic plastics, eco-design criteria, and extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes.
Controlling invasive alien species (IAS) is another area of action for development co-operation. IAS can disrupt ecosystems and threaten human well-being. While these species can be transported by winds or ocean currents, human activities are often responsible for their introduction to new environments. For instance, maritime shipping is a one vector of the introduction of numerous IAS in marine ecosystems across the world. They can be transported while attached to the hulls of ships and in their ballast water. They can also be introduced through releases of aquaculture species, or from the international ornamental trade, when poorly regulated and controlled or unregulated. Development co-operation can help curtail IAS by assisting developing countries to adopt tighter biosafety protocols, in line with global industry standards. For instance, the GEF-UNDP-IMO GloBallast Partnerships Programme assists developing countries to reduce the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens in ships’ ballast water, as well as to implement the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Ballast Water Management Convention (GloBallast Partnership, n.d.[36]). Other solutions include supporting the adoption of tighter regulations and monitoring of the aquaculture industry, curtailing illegal marine animal trafficking, and targeted eradication programmes.
As recognised threats to coastal and marine ecosystems, sea-use and coastal land-use change are vital areas of ocean management. Population growth, together with ocean-based activities, are putting pressure on coasts and the ocean (Rogers, Aburto-Oropeza and Assis, n.d.[37]). In fact, nearly half of coastal wetlands have been lost over the last 100 years (IPCC, 2022[33]) and more than 20% of mangroves have been lost over the past 40 years (FAO, 2023[38]). Coastal habitats have been severely affected by both sea-use changes (e.g. coastal development, offshore aquaculture, mariculture and bottom trawling) and land-use changes (e.g. land clearance, urban development along coastlines, pollution of rivers). To help manage these changes, development co-operation providers can play a crucial role in helping establish dedicated conservation efforts, such as the establishment and management of marine protected areas. More generally, the use of environmental safeguards and environmental impact assessments can help mitigate environmental externalities (see also Section 2.2).
Overfishing degrades marine habitats, rendering it a vital area of intervention for development co-operation. Currently, 37.7% of fish stocks are classified as overexploited (FAO, 2024[39]). The decline in fish stocks, beyond certain thresholds, can disrupt food webs and have adverse knock-on effects on marine biodiversity in general (Setianti et al., n.d.[40]). Dwindling stocks of commercially important species can also have severe consequences for the economies of coastal regions. In this context, development support targeting the drivers of overfishing is essential. This can range from helping develop adaptive fisheries management plans, which allow for the flexible management of fish stocks in a changing ocean, to supporting efforts to end illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing (IUU). New Zealand and Australia, for example, support fisheries management in the South Pacific through regional and bilateral development funding and capacity building. They also support efforts to combat IUU fishing in the South Pacific through participation in regional fisheries surveillance operations. Australia’s investments to promote sustainable fisheries management in the Pacific include support to the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and the Pacific Community (SPC) in delivering sustainable fisheries management and scientific services to member countries. Australia is also working with international partners, through the Partners in the Blue Pacific initiative, to support SPC in acquiring a dedicated fisheries science vessel to conduct essential research and inform responses to the impacts of climate change.
Active efforts to restore degraded coastal and marine ecosystems are also needed. Restoring such habitats (e.g. mangroves, seagrass, seaweed, coral reefs, salt marshes, and oyster reefs) can complement ex ante protection of ecosystems. There are encouraging signs, with the number of restoration initiatives growing globally and early signs of the recovery of marine life such as the decline in the net rate of mangrove loss (Duarte et al., 2020[41]). However, scaling up restoration efforts across countries requires replicable methods and knowledge-sharing (Abelson et al., 2020[42]), consideration of capacity and financial constraints, and fit-for-purpose governance frameworks to allow implementation at scale (Wood et al., 2024[43]). These are all relevant areas for development co-operation support.
Accelerate ocean-based climate action
The inextricable links between climate change and the ocean economy make ocean-based climate action a key goal for development co-operation. The ocean and climate interact in multiple ways. On the one hand, the ocean is a key part of the solution to climate change, whether as the world’s largest carbon sink (Wang, Ren and Li, 2024[44]) or as a source of nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation. On the other hand, ocean-based activities, such as maritime transport, can contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions and the destruction of marine habitats, which can accelerate climate change (Miola and Ciuffo, 2011[45]). At the same time, a warming climate has adverse consequences on ocean ecosystems and undermines the economic potential of the ocean, as well as the livelihoods of coastal populations. This complex web of interlinkages makes the ocean-climate nexus an important consideration7 for development co-operation. As presented in detail below and shown in Figure 2.4, development co-operation providers have a role in:
supporting ocean-based decarbonisation
promoting marine and coastal nature-based solutions
buttressing the resilience of the ocean economy and coastal populations to climate change
The ocean offers multiple avenues for decarbonisation (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2024[46]). Estimates suggest that ocean-based mitigation options could reduce GHG emissions by nearly 4 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per annum in 2030 and by more than 11 billion tons per annum in 2050, relative to projected business-as-usual (BAU) emissions (Caldeira et al., 2019[47]). These options include developing ocean-based renewable energy, decarbonising the maritime transport sector, making fisheries and aquaculture more sustainable and shifting towards low-carbon ocean-based protein, and protecting and restoring coastal and marine ecosystems. As illustrated by two examples in Box 2.2, development co-operation can have an important role in accelerating the operationalisation of ocean-based mitigation options.
Decarbonising shipping
The shipping industry is an important contributor to climate change (Clarke et al., 2023[48]). Recognising this, the IMO’s revised greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targets have called for “net-zero GHG emissions from international shipping by or around, i.e. close to 2050” (IMO, 2023[49]). Meeting these targets will require a combination of energy efficiency improvements, alternative fuels and propulsion technologies, and investment in supporting infrastructure at ports and along key trade routes, underpinned by strong national action and international cooperation between key maritime actors (OECD, 2025[50]). Concerted efforts to curtail GHG emissions should be part and parcel of ocean-related development co-operation.
Ocean-based renewable energy
Ocean-based and offshore renewable energy production currently offers significant potential for delivering clean energy and reducing GHG emissions (IRENA, 2020[51]). However, significant scaling-up of the rate of deployment is needed for offshore wind to achieve its potential. For other ocean-based renewable energy technologies, additional policy and financial support is required for research and development to enable the scale efficiencies and cost reductions that come with commissioning larger commercial plants.
Nature-based solutions (NbS) in marine and coastal contexts can advance both mitigation and adaptation goals and help tackle other societal challenges. Nature-based solutions are measures that protect, sustainably manage or restore nature to maintain or enhance ecosystem services to address societal and environmental challenges (UNEA, 2022[52]; IUCN, 2020[53]). Examples of coastal NbS are wetland restoration and management, revegetation or reforestation in river mouths and along the shoreline, as well as protection and restoration of ecosystems such as mangroves, salt marshes, seagrass beds, coral reefs, or shellfish marine species. The contribution of NbS to climate change adaptation and mitigation goals include:
Climate change adaptation: Nature-based solutions can reduce climate-related risks by decreasing wave heights, stabilising shorelines and providing buffer zones for floods. According to some estimates, about 35% of people worldwide exposed to flooding already benefit from storm surge protection from coral reefs or wetlands, while mangroves prevent an estimated 15 million people annually from being flooded (Steven et al., 2020[54]).
Climate change mitigation: Coastal and marine ecosystems are powerhouses for carbon storage, with soil carbon sequestration rates per hectare up to 10 times larger than those of terrestrial ecosystems (McLeod et al., 2011[55]). The mitigation potential of coastal and marine ecosystems can be achieved via two main pathways. First, the protection of ecosystems avoids emissions of carbon that are currently stored in soils and vegetation. Second, the restoration of ecosystems sequesters and stores carbon as vegetation grows.
In addition to promoting adaptation and mitigation goals separately, the protection and restoration of mangroves, seagrass beds, and salt marshes (i.e. “blue carbon” ecosystems) can foster linkages between climate change mitigation and adaptation (Nellemann et al., 2009[56]). As a result, NbS can be a part of ocean-related development co-operation (Box 2.3). It is worth noting that in the case of SIDS, the notion of conservation as climate action extends beyond nature-based solutions. In fact, SIDS have included a total of 278 ocean conservation measures in their nationally determined contributions, spanning area-based management, ecosystem protection, expansion and restoration, and marine environment protection (UNCTAD, 2024[57]). This highlights the close links between Goal 4 and Goal 3.
Australia is supporting developing countries – including Benin, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Madagascar – to protect and restore their mangroves and seagrass beds through the Blue Carbon Accelerator Fund, involving 12 projects. Furthermore, Australia’s Climate Resilient by Nature initiative has delivered a portfolio of community-led ecosystem restoration and conservation programmes in the Indo-Pacific – boosting biodiversity, sequestering carbon, supporting sustainable livelihoods, and strengthening community resilience to climate change and disasters. The initiative comprises 10 projects, supporting 20,000 people across 85 communities in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, funded through an allocation of AUD 21 million. (Janssen and Poulton, 2024[58]).
Meanwhile, the Blue Action Fund, funded by France, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, and the Green Climate Fund, is allocating EUR 50 million to support projects for ecosystem-based adaptation in the Western Indian Ocean, that directly contribute to climate mitigation and adaptation and reduce risks to vulnerable communities (Blue Action Fund, n.d.[59]).
The impact of climate change on the ocean and coasts makes climate resilience an important component of ocean-related development co-operation. Climate change is altering ocean climate, chemistry, circulation, sea level and ice distribution while exacerbating the risk and severity of meteorological (e.g. coastal storms), hydrological (e.g. coastal flooding) and environmental hazards. These hazards have clear ramifications for coastal and island populations. By 2100, coastal flooding is predicted to threaten 630 million people (Kulp and Strauss, 2019[60]), while sea-level rise is already threatening the supply of drinking water in many coastal areas (Lassiter, 2021[61]). Climate change also disrupts ocean economy sectors. For example, commercial fish species are moving from warmer regions into colder latitudes, requiring an adaptation of longstanding fishing practices. Meanwhile, natural catastrophes and resulting shortfalls in tourism revenue are expected to strain government resources, especially in tourism-dependent countries (IPCC, 2022[33]). As a result, development co-operation plays an important role in supporting developing countries in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction.
Seek synergies, mitigate tensions
The four goals and their drivers do not operate in a vacuum – projects that promote one goal can positively or adversely affect the other goals. By understanding the interlinkages between the goals, development co-operation providers can identify spillovers to harness synergies and avoid unintended consequences. It can also help them prioritise activities that promote multiple goals and mitigate tensions between them, which are needed to accelerate a transition to a sustainable ocean economy8.
Synergies and co-benefits
Multiple goals can be achieved by tapping into the inherent links between the different goals. For example, adapting ocean economy sectors to climate change (Goal 4) buttresses their climate resilience, which is necessary for these sectors to contribute to economic development via the ocean economy (Goal 1). Simultaneously, diversifying the economy through emerging ocean economy sectors (e.g. sustainable aquaculture) not only promotes structural transformation and development (Goal 1), but can also help reduce dependence on sectors vulnerable to climate change (e.g. wild capture fisheries) (FAO, 2024[10]) (Goal 4). Similarly, promoting ocean equity by equipping women, girls, and youth for ocean-based activities (Goal 2) can address capacity constraints, which remain a persistent barrier to climate action (Goal 4), ocean conservation (Goal 3), and economic development (Goal 1) in many developing countries.
The following are examples of efforts to achieve multiple goals via development co-operation:
The Great Blue Wall Initiative: a Western Indian Ocean-led initiative supported by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) aims to protect 30% of the Southwest Indian Ocean, create 2 million sustainable blue jobs, sink 100m tons of CO2 through blue carbon projects, while enhancing sustainable fisheries, economic growth through eco-tourism, and community involvement in resource management (IUCN, 2022[62]).
The Community Participation Solutions for Marine Plastics project in Mozambique, funded by Portugal, focuses on community involvement in the sustainable management of plastics. A key component of this project is generating value and income from the collection and use of marine plastics. In this way, the project preserves ocean health while ensuring inclusive economic development.
The Arnavons Community Marine Park in the Solomon Islands: Supported by New Zealand, this park strives to protect the largest Hawksbill turtle rookery in the South Pacific and to act as a model for community-led eco-tourism and conservation. By investing in local women, ecotourism planning, marketing, and infrastructure, the Arnavons aims to be a key tourism destination in the Solomon Islands that benefits local communities and women’s groups.
Tensions and trade-offs
Simultaneously, navigating tensions between the four goals is important for pursuing them concurrently. Monitoring and evaluating the impact of providers’ ocean economy projects on the four goals can help identify situations where adverse consequences materialise. For example, the Agence Française de Développement and the European Commission have set up a research facility to better address inequalities in marine protected areas (“MPAs”) and train practitioners in inclusive management practices (AFD, 2025[63]). When tensions arise, providers can not only consider excluding certain activities from their portfolios (discussed below), but also institute mechanisms that mitigate trade-offs between the different goals.
One trade-off is the possible harmful impact of ocean protection efforts, which restrict resource use (e.g. protected areas, fishing quotas), on socioeconomic outcomes in the short term. These can be mitigated, for example, through careful planning, participatory and community-led co-management from an early stage, and by enabling affected communities to take up alternative livelihoods. This is a key part of the Germany-initiated global Blue Action Fund9, which pairs support for MPA creation with measures to create alternative livelihoods for communities adjacent to the protected areas. Similarly, Portuguese-funded efforts to conserve sea turtles in São Tomé also include provisions for economic alternatives for local communities faced with high levels of poverty, as well as offering capacity development for women. Efforts to reduce trade-offs can also consider the time horizon. While stricter regulations to protect fish stocks can initially impact fishing communities' livelihoods, the recovery of stocks in the longer run and positive spillovers to unregulated areas (Nowakowski et al., 2023[64]) may lead to better longer-term economic opportunities. This means that part of mitigating trade-offs involves providing support to weather shorter-term frictions.
However, certain uses of the ocean can undermine efforts to protect it. Some of the threats to healthy marine and coastal ecosystems (e.g. sea-use change) and to climate action (e.g. emissions from ocean-based sectors) can be exacerbated by the pursuit of economic development and resilience via the ocean economy (e.g. development of offshore renewable energy, growth of the tourism sector). In such cases, implementing environmental safeguards is an essential part of navigating trade-offs. For instance, project and infrastructure siting decisions need to be aware of the ecological value of affected areas and ensure that high-value areas are sufficiently safeguarded or avoided entirely. In the tourism sector, risk mitigation plans for cruise ship operations within critical habitats or protected areas are vital. These can cover appropriate adaptation measures, speed reduction and avoidance of migratory species, as well as general stakeholder engagement (Johnson, 2002[65]). Guiding frameworks like the mitigation hierarchy – which outline a sequence of actions (avoid, minimise, restore, and offset) to mitigate negative impacts of development projects on biodiversity – can also be a useful tool in navigating tensions (The Biodiversity Consultancy, 2025[66]).
More generally, accounting for trade-offs means ensuring the voices of all stakeholders are heard. Managing trade-offs is complex because stakeholders prioritise them differently depending on their unique perspectives and values. A trade-off from one perspective may be seen as a synergy from another, as the perception depends on which ecosystem service outcomes are prioritised and whose viewpoint is considered. This means assessments can either highlight or obscure trade-offs depending on the values and perspectives driving the evaluation. Inclusive stakeholder consultations are a way to capture trade-offs at the aggregate level and develop effective mechanisms to alleviate them. One example of where this was done is the MSP process in the Seychelles (Baker, Constant and Nicol, 2023[67])
Use internationally recognised standards to identify activities incompatible with a sustainable ocean economy
Certain ocean-based economic activities may detract significantly from one or multiple goals, putting in question the overall coherence and effectiveness of development co-operation in support of a sustainable ocean economy. Internationally recognised standards can be used to identify activities that are incompatible with a sustainable ocean economy. While international instruments (e.g. the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, IMO’s GHG targets) provide the overarching framework, the following offer practical tools for identifying activities that should be excluded:
The European Union’s Do-No-Significant Harm (DNSH) principle: This core component of the EU’s sustainable finance legislation stipulates that activities that significantly detract from environmental objectives (i.e. climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources, transition to a circular economy, pollution prevention and control, and protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems) cannot be deemed sustainable (ESMA, 2023[68]). This approach can be applied to the goals framework, where activities that significantly harm one of the goals (despite necessary safeguards) should fall outside the scope of development co-operation for a sustainable ocean economy.
The UNEP FI Sustainable Blue Economy Finance Principles’ Exclusion List: The UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) has developed Sustainable Blue Economy Finance Principles in line with the baseline set by SDG 14 (UNEP Finance Initiative, n.d.[69]). The principles were complemented by Recommended Exclusions for Sustainable Blue Economy Financing (UNEP Finance Initiative, n.d.[69]), which highlight specific sectors, as well as activities within sectors, that should be excluded. For example, the list recommends not financing tourism development within IUCN Type I protected areas, critical habitats or areas providing essential ecosystem services; as well as coastal infrastructure development projects that do not provide safe working conditions for workers.
Establishing credible transition pathways to allow developing countries to shift away from dependence on activities that are harmful in the long run is critical. Some ocean-based activities that are detrimental to the long-run sustainability of the ocean economy are an important part of countries’ development ambitions. This is the case, for example, for offshore oil and gas, which, despite its contribution to anthropogenic climate change, is featured in some national ocean economy strategies. In such cases, development partners have an important role in working closely with developing country counterparts to shape transition plans. The DAC Declaration (OECD, 2021[70]) and the DAC Approach on Supporting Developing Countries’ Net-Zero Aligned Energy Transitions, could be instructive for energy-related transitions.
A precautionary approach is warranted for activities with an unknown, but potentially catastrophic, impact on the goals. The emerging nature of these activities, combined with incomplete science, means that there is insufficient knowledge to establish credible mechanisms to mitigate their risks and trade-offs with the goals (see Box 2.4 for the case of deep sea mining). A precautionary approach is a useful compass for avoiding irreversible harm from ocean-based activities in the face of this uncertainty (SPREP, 2015[71]).
One activity where precautionary measures are warranted is mining the seabed. Mineral deposits in the deep sea could accelerate the clean energy transition and be an engine of economic growth for many developing countries, particularly SIDS (World Bank, 2017[72]). However, the sensitivity of seabed ecosystems and insufficient scientific knowledge regarding the potential impacts of deep-sea mining (World Bank, 2017[72]) requires development co-operation providers to apply a precautionary approach and thorough due diligence, including continued research on necessary environmental impact assessments. In particular, bolstering the understanding of the environmental risks associated with seabed mineral activities is crucial. Supporting the participation of scientists from developing countries in global research efforts and public dissemination of research findings would provide a foundation for an inclusive consideration of risks and benefits.
Once the science is more robust, development co-operation providers can have a role to play in ensuring that international regulations for seabed mineral mining provide effective protection of marine environments, and that relevant environmental regulations are adequately implemented at the project level. Ensuring all citizens of developing countries benefit from any potentially mined mineral resources should be a concurrent consideration, along with the prevention of rent-seeking and corruption
Consider broader sustainable development issues, especially the land-sea and freshwater-seawater nexus
In addition to issues specific to the ocean economy, all four goals are impacted by global sustainable development challenges. In other words, other sustainable development goals have a tangible impact on the different SDG14 targets (Table 2.1). For example, general poverty alleviation efforts can reduce economic incentives for coastal communities to overexploit coastal and ocean resources, advancing the priorities of SDG14.2 (“Sustainably Manage and Protect Marine and Coastal Ecosystems”). Although this does not imply that development co-operation for a sustainable ocean economy must cover all issues of sustainable development, it does call for integration of the various policy agendas.
Source: UN DESA (2017[73]), Mapping the Linkages Between Oceans and other Sustainable Development Goals: A preliminary exploration, https://www.un.org/ar/desa/mapping-linkages-between-oceans-and-other-sustainable-development-goals
Understanding the relationships between land-based activities and the ocean, as well as freshwater and seawater systems10, is particularly important to advance the goals. The land-ocean and freshwater-seawater nexus is quite apparent in the case of pollution. Pollutants from land-based sources end up in the ocean via freshwater. Estimates suggest that between 1.2 and 2.4 million tonnes of plastic waste enter the ocean through rivers annually (Lebreton et al., 2017[74]). Similarly, runoff from agriculture and livestock is a key driver of pollution in inland waterways and coastal zones (González-Rivas et al., 2020[75]). As another example, decarbonising the maritime transport sector requires not only shifts on board (e.g. alternative fuels) and in ports (e.g. handling capacity for alternative fuels), but also in land-based energy systems. Producing “green ammonia”, for example, requires the use of renewable energy sources, whether land or ocean-based, to split hydrogen and water (IRENA, 2021[76]). Moreover, the competitiveness of ports (and their potential for value creation in the ocean economy) is partly dependent on connectivity between ports and inland corridors (Merk and Notteboom, 2015[77]), meaning that land-based or freshwater-based connections are critical. The intimate relationship between land, freshwater, and the ocean explains why even some landlocked developing countries (e.g. Lao PDR) have developed blue economy strategies11.
A simple typology can help development co-operation providers systematically account for these linkages. This distinguishes between development initiatives/activities according to their specificity to the ocean economy and is meant as a simple framing tool for providers:
Development co-operation activities for a sustainable ocean economy:
Activities/initiatives occurring on the ocean, in proximity to the ocean, or with a focus on ocean/coastal resources that promote the goals.
Land-based or freshwater-based activities with direct links to the ocean-specific issues underpinning the goals (e.g., road infrastructure for port-inland connectivity).
Broader development co-operation activities that have repercussions for the sustainable ocean economy transition: Activities with indirect links to the goals, or that enhance the feasibility of achieving the goals (e.g. broader renewable energy capacity needed for green ammonia).
Developing countries vary greatly in their endowments of marine and coastal resources, the size and composition of their ocean economies, and exposure to ocean-related risks and threats. Not only are there differences between country groups (e.g. SIDS vs. large emerging coastal economies), but also within country groups. Even Pacific SIDS, despite their common features, are not homogeneous. While some economies depend heavily on coastal tourism, others are more reliant on commodities, including fish exports (OECD, 2023[78]). As a result, aligning efforts with country-owned priorities – a fundamental principle of the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC, 2011[79]) – is essential in promoting the four goals.
The relevance of threats and drivers of each goal, as well as the sectoral focus, also vary across countries. For example, OECD modelling suggests that plastics use will grow fastest in Sub-Saharan Africa (about six-fold between 2019 and 2060). This makes curbing pollution a particularly salient driver of healthy marine and coastal ecosystems in this region (OECD, 2022[80]). Similarly, the sectoral focus of the goals will also depend on the relative importance of each sector in a given country. Marine and coastal tourism, for example, accounts for nearly one-third of the ocean economy (in gross value-added terms) in Latin America and the Caribbean, Southeastern Asia and Oceania, Southern and Central Asia, as well as Sub-Saharan Africa (OECD, 2025[7]). Yet, the sector is much less prominent in the ocean economy of Northern Africa and Western Asia (OECD, 2025[7]).
Use developing countries’ ocean economy policy instruments to identify precise ways to promote the four goals
A survey of developing countries’ ocean economy definitions and policies shows that despite some acknowledgement of all four goals, the degree to which they are stressed varies. In some cases, such as the countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), there is a clear emphasis on value creation (ASEAN, 2023[81]). Likewise, in Africa, the ocean is seen as an engine of economic development, being referred to as the “new frontier of African Renaissance” or the “future of development in Africa” (Bolaky, 2020[82]; Karani et al., 2022[83]). Meanwhile, Vanuatu’s national ocean policy is firmly grounded in "respect for tradition", mirroring the goal of ocean equity. Even its national ocean policy structure is modelled on the Nakamal, an institution for traditional custom governing systems in Vanuatu (Figure 2.5). While the emphasis on certain aspects does not necessarily imply the eschewing of others, these differences do underscore country-specific visions for the ocean economy.
Source: Government of Vanuatu (2016[84]), Vanuatu’s National Ocean Policy: Our ocean, our culture, our people, https://macbio-pacific.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Vanuatu_National_Ocean_Policy_High_Res_020616.pdf.
Developing countries’ own ocean policy instruments also make clear that the specific areas of action and priority sectors are not uniform across countries (Table 2.2). SIDS, for example, emphasise the need for economic diversification and resilience. One of the pillars of Seychelles’ ocean economy policy is “economic diversification and resilience”, aiming to reduce reliance on a small number of sectors and consequently reduce economic vulnerability (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2018[85]). Countries also have differing ambitions for future ocean economy sectors. For example, the Bahamas and Fiji emphasise eco-tourism, while Indonesia and Bangladesh prioritise fisheries and aquaculture (Republic of Fiji, 2020[24]; Kementerian PPN/Bappenas, 2023[86]; Bahamas Maritime Authority, 2015[87]; UNDP, 2021[88]). Taking into account both the current composition of a country’s ocean economy and its planned or expected development is important for development co-operation providers.
Note: HIC: high-income country; LMIC: lower-middle income country; UMIC: upper-middle income country.
Where ocean-specific policy and institutional frameworks are lacking, align development co-operation efforts with existing tools and processes
Several cross-sectoral and sector-specific planning tools can provide a basis for development co-operation for a sustainable ocean economy, even when dedicated ocean strategies and policies are lacking. These can include National Development Plans, Nationally Determined Contributions, National Adaptation Plans, and National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans. Each typically covers different aspects of the ocean economy (e.g. mitigation targets for ocean economy sectors reflected in national development contributions). But where there is internal coherence across these planning instruments, using them collectively (together with sector plans) can be a practical solution in the absence of (or a lack of intent to develop) dedicated ocean strategies.
It is, however, important for development co-operation providers to monitor countries’ processes towards integrated ocean management (Chapter 3). Even if the development of a standalone ocean strategy or policy is not on the horizon for a given country, processes like marine spatial planning might be. A country’s MSP, and any associated legislation, can be a useful reference for development co-operation for a sustainable ocean economy. Moreover, for countries that are in the process of developing standalone strategies and policies, stakeholder consultation is usually a key step. Engaging with these consultations can give providers a sense of where a country is heading on its ocean-related ambitions and help anticipate future needs for development co-operation.
References
[30] Abdullah, A. et al. (2017), “The impact of the expansion of shrimp aquaculture on livelihoods in coastal Bangladesh”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol. 19/5, pp. 2093-2114, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9824-5.
[42] Abelson, A. et al. (2020), “Challenges for Restoration of Coastal Marine Ecosystems in the Anthropocene”, Frontiers in Marine Science, Vol. 7, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.544105.
[6] ADB (2019), Action Plan for Healthy Oceans and Sustainable Blue Economies, https://doi.org/10.22617/ARM240340-2.
[63] AFD (2025), Harnessing the benefits of inequalities reduction in marine protected areas in Indonesia, https://www.afd.fr/en/carte-des-projets/harnessing-benefits-inequalities-reduction-marine-protected-areas-indonesia.
[81] ASEAN (2023), ASEAN Blue Economy Framework, https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ASEAN-Blue-Economy-Framework.pdf.
[87] Bahamas Maritime Authority (2015), The Bahamas’ National Maritime Policy, https://www.bahamas.gov.bs/wps/wcm/connect/36f9a2ff-17fd-4b59-8484-a68c6c83611d/Bahamas+NMP+Revised+February+2017.pdf?MOD=AJPERES#:~:text=The%20objectives%20of%20the%20BNMP,and%20protocols%20that%20enhance%20the.
[67] Baker, S., N. Constant and P. Nicol (2023), “Oceans justice: Trade-offs between Sustainable Development Goals in the Seychelles”, Marine Policy, Vol. 147, p. 105357, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105357.
[14] Bennett, N. et al. (2021), “Blue growth and blue justice: Ten risks and solutions for the ocean economy”, Marine Policy, Vol. 125, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104387.
[29] Blasiak, R. et al. (2018), ““Corporate control and global governance of marine genetic resources””, Science Advances, Vol. 4/6, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aar5237.
[59] Blue Action Fund (n.d.), What We Fund, https://www.blueactionfund.org/funding-opportunities/#Call.
[82] Bolaky, B. (2020), Operationalising Blue Economy in Africa: The Case of South West Indian Ocean, https://www.orfonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ORF_IssueBrief_398_BlueEconomy.pdf.
[31] Bourguignon, F. (2015), ““Revisiting the Debate on Inequality and Economic Development””, Revue d’économie politique, Vol. 125, pp. 633-663, https://shs.cairn.info/revue-d-economie-politique-2015-5-page-633?lang=en.
[47] Caldeira, K. et al. (2019), The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change Five Opportunities for Action, http://www.oceanpanel.org/climate.
[48] Clarke, D. et al. (2023), “CO2 emissions from global shipping: A new experimental database”, OECD Statistics Working Papers, No. 2023/04, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bc2f7599-en.
[15] Claudet, J. et al. (2024), “Advancing ocean equity at the nexus of development, climate and conservation policy”, Nat Ecol Evol, Vol. 8, pp. 1205-1208, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02417-5.
[85] Commonwealth Secretariat (2018), Seychelles’ Blue Economy. Strategic Policy Framework and Roadmap: Charting the Future (2018-2030), https://seymsp.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/CommonwealthSecretariat-12pp-RoadMap-Brochure.pdf.
[20] Crosman, K. et al. (2022), “Social equity is key to sustainable ocean governance”, npj Ocean Sustainability, Vol. 1/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-022-00001-7.
[41] Duarte, C. et al. (2020), “Rebuilding marine life”, Nature, Vol. 580/7801, pp. 39-51, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2146-7.
[5] EIB (2024), Clean oceans and the blue economy: Overview, European Investment Bank, https://www.eib.org/attachments/lucalli/20220311-clean-oceans-and-the-blue-economy-overview-2023.pdf.
[68] ESMA (2023), ’Do No Significant Harm’ definitions and criteria across the EU Sustainable Finance framework, https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-11/ESMA30-379-2281_Note_DNSH_definitions_and_criteria_across_the_EU_Sustainable_Finance_framework.pdf.
[10] FAO (2024), The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture - Blue Transformation in action, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, https://doi.org/10.4060/cd0683en.
[39] FAO (2024), The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, https://doi.org/10.4060/cd0683en.
[38] FAO (2023), The world’s mangroves 2000–2020, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, https://doi.org/10.4060/cc7044en.
[13] FAO (2022), The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue Transformation, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0461en.
[22] Flannery, W., N. Healy and M. Luna (2018), “Exclusion and non-participation in Marine Spatial Planning”, Marine Policy, Vol. 88, pp. 32-40, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.001.
[28] Forster, J. et al. (2017), “Evidence of a common understanding of proximate and distal drivers of reef health”, Marine Policy, Vol. 84, pp. 263-272, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.07.017.
[32] Franke, A. et al. (2020), “Operationalizing Ocean Health: Toward Integrated Research on Ocean Health and Recovery to Achieve Ocean Sustainability”, One Earth, Vol. 2/6, pp. 557-565, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.05.013.
[4] Gaines, S. et al. (2019), The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy, https://www.blueclimateinitiative.org/sites/default/files/2020-06/expected-impacts-climate-change-on-the-ocean-economy.pdf.
[16] Gill, D. et al. (2023), “Triple exposure: Reducing negative impacts of climate change, blue growth, and conservation on coastal communities”, One Earth, Vol. 6/2, pp. 118-130, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.01.010.
[36] GloBallast Partnership (n.d.), Home - GloBallast, https://archive.iwlearn.net/globallast.imo.org/index.html.
[75] González-Rivas, D. et al. (2020), “Estimating Nitrogen Runoff From Agriculture to Coastal Zones by a Rapid GIS and Remote Sensing-Based Method for a Case Study From the Irrigation District Río Mayo, Gulf of California, México”, Frontiers in Marine Science, Vol. 7, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00316.
[9] Government of Angola (2022), Presidential Decree No. 183/22 approving the National Strategy for the Sea of Angola (ENMA) 2030, https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/ang211637.pdf.
[84] Government of Vanuatu (2016), Vanuatu’s National Ocean Policy - our ocean, our culture, our people, https://macbio-pacific.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Vanuatu_National_Ocean_Policy_High_Res_020616.pdf.
[79] GPEDC (2011), Busan Partnership Outcome Document, https://www.effectivecooperation.org/content/busan-partnership-outcome-document.
[46] Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. (2024), The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Updated Opportunities for Action, World Resources Institute, https://doi.org/10.69902/98e3de92.
[49] IMO (2023), Revised GHG reduction strategy for global shipping adopted, International Maritime Organisation, https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/pages/Revised-GHG-reduction-strategy-for-global-shipping-adopted-.aspx.
[34] IMO (1973), International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, International Maritime Organisation, https://www.imo.org/en/about/Conventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-from-Ships-(MARPOL).aspx.
[33] IPCC (2022), “Summary for Policymakers”, in The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157964.001.
[76] 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.
[51] IRENA (2020), Fostering a blue economy: Offshore renewable energy, International Renewable Energy Agency, https://www.irena.org/Publications/2020/Dec/Fostering-a-blue-economy-Offshore-renewable-energy.
[62] IUCN (2022), “The Great Blue Wall: Good practices for marine and coastal conservation in the Western Indian Ocean”, https://panorama.solutions/sites/default/files/mediathek/panorama_gbw_brochure-2022-v06_final_web_small.pdf.
[53] IUCN (2020), IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions: a user-friendly framework for the verification, design and scaling up of NbS: first edition, IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, https://doi.org/10.2305/iucn.ch.2020.08.en.
[58] Janssen, G. and D. Poulton (2024), Nature-based Solutions Evaluation, Alinea International, https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/nature-based-solutions-evaluation-final-report-march-2024.pdf.
[65] Johnson, D. (2002), “Environmentally sustainable cruise tourism: a reality check”, Marine Policy, Vol. 26/4, pp. 261-270, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0308-597x(02)00008-8.
[19] Josse, T. et al. (2019), Marine Spatial Planning: Resolving or entrenching conflicts over and in ocean space?, Transnational Institute, Amsterdam, https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/msp_en_web.pdf.
[83] Karani, P. et al. (2022), “Africa Blue Economy Strategies Integrated in Planning to Achieve Sustainable Development at National and Regional Economic Communities (RECs)”, Journal of Sustainability Research, Vol. 4/3, https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20220011.
[35] Kaza, S. et al. (2018), What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050, Washington, DC: World Bank, https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1329-0.
[86] 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.
[60] Kulp, S. and B. Strauss (2019), “New elevation data triple estimates of global vulnerability to sea-level rise and coastal flooding”, Nature Communications, Vol. 10/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12808-z.
[61] Lassiter, A. (2021), “Rising seas, changing salt lines, and drinking water salinization”, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Vol. 50/June 2021, pp. 208-214, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.04.009.
[21] Lawless, S. et al. (2021), “Gender equality is diluted in commitments made to small-scale fisheries”, World Development, Vol. 140, p. 105348, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105348.
[89] Le Gouvello, R. and F. Simard (2024), Towards a Regenerative Blue Economy. Mapping the Blue Economy, International Union for Conservation of Nature, https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2024-005-En.pdf.
[74] Lebreton, L. et al. (2017), “River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans”, Nature Communications, Vol. 8/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15611.
[25] McDermott, M., S. Mahanty and K. Schreckenberg (2013), “Examining equity: A multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services”, Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 33, pp. 416-427, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.006.
[55] McLeod, E. et al. (2011), “A blueprint for blue carbon: Toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2”, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 9/10, pp. 552-560, https://doi.org/10.1890/110004.
[77] Merk, O. and T. Notteboom (2015), “Port Hinterland Connectivity”, International Transport Forum Discussion Papers, No. 2015/13, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jrvzrm4t724-en.
[45] Miola, A. and B. Ciuffo (2011), “Estimating air emissions from ships: Meta-analysis of modelling approaches and available data sources”, Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 45/13, pp. 2242-2251, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.01.046.
[90] Namibia Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (2022), Namibia Blue Economy Policy, https://mfmr.gov.na/documents/411764/2631681/Draft+Namibia+Sustainable+Blue+Economy+Policy.pdf/b4b334bd-b3e7-4e8b-442f-cbbc6fac34e2.
[56] Nellemann, C. et al. (2009), Blue Carbon. A Rapid Response Assessment, United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christian-Nellemann/publication/304215852_Blue_carbon_A_UNEP_rapid_response_assessment/links/5769a81308ae2d7145ba854d/Blue-carbon-A-UNEP-rapid-response-assessment.pdf?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9.
[12] Nelluri, P. et al. (2024), “Technologies for management of fish waste and value addition”, Food and Humanity, Vol. 2, p. 100228, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foohum.2024.100228.
[64] Nowakowski, A. et al. (2023), “Co-benefits of marine protected areas for nature and people”, Nature Sustainability, Vol. 6/10, pp. 1210-1218, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01150-4.
[7] OECD (2025), The Ocean Economy to 2050, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a9096fb1-en.
[50] OECD (2025), The Role of Shipbuilding in Maritime Decarbonisation: Impacts of Technology Developments and Policy Measures, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/0c8362c0-en.
[11] OECD (2024), The Blue Economy in Cities and Regions: A Territorial Approach, OECD Urban Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bd929b7d-en.
[78] OECD (2023), Towards a Blue Recovery in Samoa: Appraisal Report, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bd8d4112-en.
[18] OECD (2022), Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women and Girls: DAC Guidance for Development Partners, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0bddfa8f-en.
[80] OECD (2022), Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aa1edf33-en.
[8] OECD (2021), COVID-19 pandemic: Towards a blue recovery in small island developing states, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/241271b7-en.
[70] OECD (2021), OECD DAC Declaration on a New Approach to Align Development Cooperation with the goals of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change [OECD/LEGAL/0466], https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0466.
[2] 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.
[1] OECD (2016), The Ocean Economy in 2030, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264251724-en.
[17] Österblom, H. et al. (2020), Towards Ocean Equity, World Resources Institute, https://oceanpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Towards-Ocean-Equity.pdf.
[24] Republic of Fiji (2020), Republic of Fiji National Ocean Policy 2020-2030, https://fijiclimatechangeportal.gov.fj/ppss/republic-of-fiji-national-ocean-policy-2020-2030/.
[37] Rogers, A., O. Aburto-Oropeza and J. Assis (n.d.), Critical Habitats and Biodiversity: Inventory, Thresholds and Governance, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32505.08805.
[3] Rogers, A. and D. Laffoley (2013), “Introduction to the special issue: The global state of the ocean; interactions between stresses, impacts and some potential solutions. Synthesis papers from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean 2011 and 2012 workshops”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 74/2, pp. 491-494, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.06.057.
[23] Rohe, J., A. Schlüter and S. Ferse (2018), “A gender lens on women’s harvesting activities and interactions with local marine governance in a South Pacific fishing community”, Maritime Studies, Vol. 17/2, pp. 155-162, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-018-0106-8.
[27] Santos, R. (ed.) (2024), “Transforming place-based management within watersheds in Fiji: The watershed interventions for systems health project”, PLOS Water, Vol. 3/7, p. e0000102, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000102.
[40] Setianti, Y. et al. (n.d.), “Overfishing and marine ecosystem collapse: a global perspective”, Journal of Social Science, Vol. 1/5, pp. 273-289, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385879757_Overfishing_and_Marine_Ecosystem_Collapse_A_Global_Perspective.
[71] SPREP (2015), Understanding and Applying the Precautionary Principle to Deep Sea Minerals Mining in the Pacific, Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, https://library.sprep.org/sites/default/files/11N.4.1._Annex_1_Prec_Princ_and_DSM_mining.pdf.
[54] Steven, A. et al. (2020), Coastal Development: Resilience, Restoration and Infrastructure Requirements, High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, https://oceanpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Coastal-Development-Full-Paper-Final.pdf.
[26] 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.
[66] The Biodiversity Consultancy (2025), Mitigation Hierarchy, https://www.thebiodiversityconsultancy.com/services/site-level-advisory/mitigation-hierarchy/.
[91] UN (2022), UNOC Political Declaration: Our ocean, our future, our responsibility, https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/UNOC_political_declaration_final.pdf.
[73] UN DESA (2017), Mapping the linkages between oceans and other Sustainable Development Goals: A preliminary exploration, https://www.un.org/ar/desa/mapping-linkages-between-oceans-and-other-sustainable-development-goals.
[57] UNCTAD (2024), A deep dive into ocean-related measures in the nationally determined contributions of small island developing states, https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ditcted2024d2_en.pdf.
[88] UNDP (2021), Promoting Sustainable Blue Economy in Bangladesh Through Sustainable Blue Bond, United Nations Development Program Bangladesh, https://www.undp.org/bangladesh/publications/promoting-sustainable-blue-economy-bangladesh-through-sustainable-blue-bond.
[52] UNEA (2022), Nature-based solutions for supporting sustainable development. Resolution adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly on 2 March 2022, United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme, https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/39864/NATURE-BASED%20SOLUTIONS%20FOR%20SUPPORTING%20SUSTAINABLE%20DEVELOPMENT.%20English.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
[69] UNEP Finance Initiative (n.d.), Sustainable Blue Economy Finance Principles, https://www.unepfi.org/blue-finance/the-principles/.
[44] Wang, Q., F. Ren and R. Li (2024), “Uncovering the world’s largest carbon sink—a profile of ocean carbon sinks research”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 31/13, pp. 20362-20382, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32161-z.
[43] Wood, G. et al. (2024), “Upscaling marine forest restoration: challenges, solutions and recommendations from the Green Gravel Action Group”, Frontiers in Marine Science, Vol. 11, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2024.1364263.
[72] World Bank (2017), Precautionary Management of Deep Sea Mining Potential in Pacific Island Countries, World Bank, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/ar/349631503675168052/pdf/119106-WP-PUBLIC-114p-PPDSMbackgroundfinal.pdf.
← 1. This does represent a smaller share than in 1995 (71%). See https://doi.org/10.1787/a9096fb1-en.
← 2. For example, see Namibia’s Ocean Economy Policy (https://mfmr.gov.na/documents/411764/2631681/Draft+Namibia+Sustainable+Blue+Economy+Policy.pdf/b4b334bd-b3e7-4e8b-442f-cbbc6fac34e2) and the ASEAN Blue Economy Framework (https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ASEAN-Blue-Economy-Framework.pdf).
← 3. As noted in Chapter 1, natural resources from the ocean are varied, ranging from minerals to marine life, and to water and energy sources. Based on the OECD’s definition of a sustainable ocean economy, the use of these resources should integrate sustainability considerations (i.e. conservation and sustainable use). More details on which resources might warrant precaution and which activities should be excluded are provided in Section 2.2).
← 4. Addressing these issues also amounts to respecting human rights (i.e. equality and non-discrimination, participation, accountability) and taking a human-rights based approach to development.
← 5. Recognitional justice refers to acknowledging and respecting pre-existing governance arrangements, distinct rights, worldviews, knowledge, needs, livelihoods, histories and cultures of different groups and address systemic barriers. Procedural justice aims for participatory approaches including all stakeholder in decision making processes. Distributional justice refers to the equitable distribution of resources, opportunities, and benefits from ocean-based activities among all individuals and communities. See https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02417-5.
← 6. See https://doi.org/10.1787/0bddfa8f-en for a dedicated guidance on development co-operation and gender equality.
← 7. The ocean-climate nexus was also stressed in the political declaration from the Second UN Ocean Conference in 2022, held in Lisbon. See https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/UNOC_political_declaration_final.pdf.
← 8. Activities that promote all four goals align closely with a vision of a regenerative ocean economy.Gouvello and Simard (2024) define a regenerative ocean economy as “an economic model that combines rigorous and effective regeneration and protection of the Ocean and marine and coastal ecosystems with sustainable, low, or no carbon economic activities, and fair prosperity for people and the planet, now and in the future,” see https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2024-005-En.pdf.
← 9. In addition to Germany, the Blue Action Fund is supported by Sweden, France, Norway, Ireland, and the Green Climate Fund.
← 10. Freshwater and seawater are intrinsically linked in both quantitative and qualitative terms through the global water cycle: most of the impacts of climate change manifest as disruptions to the water cycle, with about 90% of natural disasters and climate change impacts being water-related, and freshwater (e.g. rivers) is one of the main vectors for ocean pollution (e.g. plastic, sewage and nutrients). See https://doi.org/10.1787/bd929b7d-en.
← 11. Here, blue economy is used given that the strategy focuses on freshwater resources.