In this new report, CFFA highlights six areas of concern that demonstrate how incompatible blue growth is with the development of healthy, sustainable artisanal fisheries and how it prevents the advance of the responsible governance of tenure to achieve food security and poverty eradication
The annual Our Ocean Conference, to be held in Oslo on 23 and 24th October, will convene various stakeholders, - governments, industries, financing entities, scientific communities, civil society organizations-, to discuss and make concrete commitments about how to preserve the oceans' health. One of the areas of action for the Our Ocean 2019 Conference relates to sustainable fisheries. The organisers highlight that overfishing, pollution, habitat degradation are putting fish stocks under stress, having a dramatic effect on traditional fishing and fishery-dependent communities and threatening the development of a healthy blue economy, - the 'blue growth'.
In this new paper, CFFA highlights six areas of concern, which when combined, demonstrate how the blue growth concept is likely incompatible with securing sustainable small scale fisheries in line with the FAO Voluntary Guidelines on Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication.
The marginal position of fisheries in blue growth: The origin of the blue economy/growth concepts lies with the work of UNEP. Small-scale fisheries were originally seen as strategic because of their importance in providing food security and livelihoods, as well as being a relatively low carbon emitting sector. But as international interest has been generated, small-scale fisheries have become less of a priority. The focus is now on business opportunities that provide short term economic potential gains. Explaining what is useful about the blue growth concept for small-scale fisheries has become harder to do. Numerous high-level conferences on blue growth have therefore not included representation from small-scale fisheries organisations.
The misleading presentation of value in the blue economy: The Guidelines highlight the dangers for small-scale fisheries and food security when public policy is fixated on economic growth. Yet this is the dominant framing of the benefits for society; blue growth advocates are promoting highly dubious estimates on the value of blue natural capital, suggesting the ocean economy has enormous potential for further growth and private sector investments. Blue growth has therefore become a barrier to recognising the unique value of small-scale fisheries and the public wealth of commons, while it stimulates a reckless narrative of coastal and marine ecosystems being largely untapped.
Blue growth has side-lined a human rights perspective: The corporate orientated nature of blue growth means that a human rights-based approach is largely absent. Governance reforms for stimulating blue growth are based on the need to attract private investors. The overriding message of ‘partnerships’ with multinational corporations is central to the work of most leading organisations. This has been called ‘blue washing’; a term that originates from the UN’s decision to allow companies involved in the Global Compact to use its blue logo. However, many countries adopting blue growth do not have the institutions in place to avoid its most obvious threats to vulnerable and marginalised people.
Blue growth is promoting competing industries to small-scale fisheries: Blue growth is presented as a win-win-win scenario; good for the environment, good for poorer people and good for investors. This obscures the inevitable competition for resources and tenure rights among ocean and coastal based businesses. Following the example of the European Commission, several developing countries are using the blue growth concept to justify investments in businesses that will have a damaging impact on coastal fisheries. This includes oil and gas, seabed mining, coastal tourism and commercial aquaculture. While advocates of blue growth may not want it to undermine the tenure rights of small-scale fisheries, this is encouraged by the flexible interpretation of the concept and the importance given to economic growth. Small-scale fisheries struggle to resist these developments due to their weak bargaining position, state corporate corruption, and the absence of independent social and environmental impact assessments.
Blue growth is a failed response to the climate crisis: Advocates claim that a most important aspect of blue growth is about ‘decoupling’ economic growth from resource depletion and greenhouse emissions. Considering the most polluting ocean industries; oil and gas, shipping and tourism, there is no evidence that further growth in these sectors can be achieved while dramatically reducing their contribution to the climate crisis and biodiversity loss. The implications for small-scale fisheries and poverty reduction for the most vulnerable and marginalised is worrying. Blue growth allows for business as usual and removes the urgency for reforms. The idea that ‘blue carbon’ trading can help mitigate the climate crisis is also unconvincing—there is almost no possibility that a market or fund will materialise to pay for blue carbon at any scale and any time soon.
Blue growth and the promise of ‘inclusive growth’: Advocates say that blue growth is designed to ensure ‘inclusive development’. However, there is a lack of critical reflection on what it means and how it could be achieved. Generally blue growth assumes that poverty reduction and inequality will be addressed through stimulating new jobs and increasing private investment. But most studies on inclusive growth recognise that these are not reliable pathways for improving the lives of many poor people or those reliant on small-scale and subsistence farming and fishing. Blue growth is focussed on highly capital-intensive projects, which offer limited benefits for most coastal communities in developing countries. Organisations promoting this financialization of coastal and marine development typically have vested themselves as brokers and service providers. This elevates their influence of domestic policymaking but can be at odds to the interests of small-scale fisheries.
In conclusion, CFFA argues that blue growth lacks critical reflection on the root causes of problems facing small-scale fisheries. Therefore, it is most unlikely to help secure sustainable small-scale fisheries and advance the responsible governance of tenure to achieve food security and poverty eradication. Among some critics of blue growth, there is hope that the slogan could be redefined to better accommodate small-scale fisheries. From the perspective of small-scale fisheries, however, the challenge is not to insert the Guidelines into blue growth, but to restrain blue growth in order to see the Guidelines implemented.
You can read the full paper by clicking here.