Challenges to the European Blue Growth Strategy

GG6512

Patrick Cross: 114221921

  2  

Introduction

This document will discuss the key challenges that Europe will face during

the application of its Blue Growth (BG) strategy for marine and maritime development as part of Europe 2020 (European Commission 2014a). Central

to this examination is the conflict between economic development and environmental conservation; two opposing forces that this author feels are often mutually exclusive (Jackson 2009; Fullerton 2010).

The European Commission (2012a), in a communication entitled “Blue Growth: Opportunities for Marine and Maritime Sustainable Growth”, defined

five key focus areas in the blue economy: blue energy including marine renewables; aquaculture; marine and coastal tourism; marine mineral

resources and blue biotechnology. In response to this communication, a joint NGO position paper by the European Seas Environmental Cooperation

(ESEC) titled “Limits to Blue Growth” was produced voicing opinions and concerns regarding the intent of the EC and their blue growth agenda (ESEC

2012). The key messages from this document are listed below:

1. Recognise the centrality of healthy marine ecosystems to the sustainability of the marine resources

2. Adhere to the precautionary principle (of eco-system management) 3. Ensure that technology and efficiency gains are not outstripped by

growth 4. Use marine spatial planning in combination with other policy

instruments (that are designed to protect the environment)

In short the ESEC challenged the prioritisation of market expansion within the BG strategy, instead supporting the Marine Strategy Framework Directive

(MSFD) and its objective of Good Environmental Status (GES).

In 2014 the European Commission (EC 2014b) produced a follow on

communication defining three key obstacles to growth, only one of which (knowledge and data gaps) addressed the issues of marine environmental

degradation. This apparent bias towards economic expansion over environmental protection undermines the premise that the BG strategy

  3  

facilitates sustainable development of the European marine and maritime sectors. The World Commission on Environment and Development (1987)

define sustainable development as, “development that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their

own needs”.

This paper will discuss the challenge the European Union faces in

implementing its BG strategy, a product of the Integrated Marine Policy (IMP) while concurrently endorsing the protection of sensitive marine environments

through instruments like the MSFD. Examples of these conflicting ideals will be provided and their potential impacts for the population of member states

examined.

Knowledge and Policy Gaps

The EC document “Innovation in the Blue Economy” lists “gaps in knowledge and data concerning the state of our oceans, seabed resources, marine life

and risks to habitats and ecosystems” as a key issue affecting growth in the blue economy strategy (EC 2014b). To address this issue the Commission

has developed EMODnet, the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet 2011).

“The aim of EMODnet is to increase productivity of all tasks involving marine

data, to promote innovation and to reduce uncertainty about the behaviour of

the sea. This reduces risks associated with private and public investments in

the blue economy, and facilitates more effective protection of the marine

environment”.

(European Commission 2014c)

The EC (2012a), while acknowledging the usefulness of a greater abundance

of standardised marine data for environmental protection applications, concentrate instead on the business potential of more effective data

accumulation, management and dissemination. “Assessments show that making data more available and accessible to both public and private sector

users will drive forward innovation and competition” (EC 2014b). In contrast UNEP (2006), ESEC (2012) and Elfwing at al. (2014) discuss the lack of

reliable baseline scientific data hindering the assessment of marine

  4  

ecosystems. “For all five focus areas the magnitude and scope of environmental impacts are highly uncertain. The gaps in data and knowledge

for all of them are substantial” (ESEC 2012). This lack of insight into the functioning and interconnections of marine ecosystems impacts our ability to

estimate the effects of market growth and development upon them.

The ESEC (2012) highlight the “prioritisation of deep sea mineral mining”, as

particularly worrying due to the significant absence of data describing these ecosystems, with up to 50% of European seafloor lacking “high resolution

bathymetric surveys and a far higher proportion” lacking flora and fauna habitat and community maps (EC 2014b). In line with ESEC (2012) Pawson

(2010) describes the long-term value of deep-sea ecosystem services versus the short-term financial gains of industrial mineral extraction and the need to

more clearly understand our marine ecosystems before allowing potentially harmful development.

Alongside an absence of data, gaps in policy can also have a detrimental effect on marine environments and the ecosystem services they provide (UNEP 2006). Global and European coastal zones are highly populated,

susceptible to the affects of climate change and are heavily impacted by anthropogenic influences (Costanza 2000). Although mentioned by the EC

communication in 2012a, Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) was not included in the 2014 MSP directive, being reduced to the statement,

“member states marine spatial planning should take into account land-sea interactions” (Mare Nostrum 2014). Of the five key focus areas for growth

(EC 2012) three heavily rely on clean environmental systems for their success. Marine aquaculture typically takes place in the near shore zone and requires

a constant source of clean water (T. Cross 2015, pers. comm., 8 April). Marine and coastal tourism and blue biotechnology are heavily dependent on

the physical state and ecological integrity of coastal ecosystems (Quinn 2014; Locale Consulting 2014). ICZM, taking into consideration all activities,

resources uses and users within the coastal zone, addresses the need for the maintenance of marine ecosystems, facilitating the expansion of industries

such as biotechnology and tourism and through its absence from the MSP directive, hinders the sustainable expansion of these sectors.

  5  

A prominent example of a poorly managed coastal development that could have benefited from the integrative approach of ICZM is the Shell, Corrib gas

project on Irelands West Coast. The threat of environmental impacts and a lack of stakeholder engagement forced the project 12 years past its deadline

and €2.4 billion over budget (Deegan 2014). The grass roots resistance to this development has been consistent and is on-going today, despite the

beginning of production in 2015.

Legislation and Regulation

The opposing viewpoints highlighted above can be framed in part by the

creation and support of conflicting legislative instruments, the IMP favouring development over conservation and the MSFD treating conservation as

central to all economic activity (Qiu and Jones 2013). Qiu and Jones describe the alternative views of sustainability and how this interpretation

affects MSP (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Different views on sustainability in MSP (Qiu et al. 2013)

  6  

Fig. 1 shows the concept of hard sustainability on the left, where ecosystem services underpin all economic activity and soft sustainability on the right,

where conservation is a pillar equal to other activities (e.g. renewable energy development). Qiu et al. (2013) go on to describe the bias of the IMP

towards “cross-sectoral integration and maritime economic growth”.

“This is reflected by the fact that in a total of EUR 40 million committed for

the implementation of the IMP for the period 2011-13, at least 60% will be

allocated for the development of cross-sectoral management tools, including

MSP, compared to 8% for the protection of the marine environment and

sustainable use of marine resources”.

(Qiu et al. 2013)

The BG strategy appears to favour a soft sustainability approach, treating

conservation as an element of maritime expansion rather than the foundation at its core. While the MSFD follows the guidance of the Lisbon Treaty and a precautionary approach to development (Qiu et al. 2013) the ESEC contend

that the BG strategy endorses rapid economic expansion, at the expense of a more complete understanding of the impacts of anthropogenic activities

(ESEC 2012). The ecological implications for a ‘business as usual’ approach to our oceans are compounded by the lack of data describing these

ecosystems.

A major challenge for Europe and the BG strategy is the framing of economic expansion within the limits of ecological systems. Tina Elfwing describes the

impact of a historical focus on growth in the Baltic Sea resulting in heavy algal blooms, marine dead zones and decreasing fish stocks (Elfwing 2014).

Mann (2000) provides an array of examples of the negative influence of humans on marine ecosystems from the deterioration of the Venice Lagoon

system from dredging, development and pollution to hypoxic water conditions and fish mortality related to domestic and agricultural run off in

the Gulf of Mexico. In this author’s opinion the BG strategy does not appear to have adequately addressed the ecological limitations of the European

marine environment.

  7  

Brennan et al. (2014) discuss the conflict between MSP and the MSFD in the UK and highlight an important issue related to the MSFD and conservation

practice in general, the lack of easily identifiable targets and measurable goals. This issue is present in the MSFD in the form of Good Environmental

Status.

“Part of the problem is normative, since the definition of ‘good’ in GES is

derived from societal values and judgements. In other words, GES is a

societal construction rather than biological ‘fact’, and its meaning will vary

over time and circumstance”.

(Brennan et al. 2014)

This vagueness of definition makes it difficult to measure the results of conservation campaigns and quantify goals and targets. Another issue

described by Brennan et al. (2014) related to the concept of GES are the “opt-outs or exemptions that MSFD legitimises”. EU states can claim that

they cannot achieve GES due to:

1. Actions for which it is not responsible

2. Natural causes 3. Force majeure

4. Overriding public interest 5. Insufficient time

6. No significant risk to the environment 7. Disproportionate costs

This author questions the efficacy of an instrument for environmental protection with such a high number of exemptions and possible

interpretations. Gerber et al. (2000) discuss more difficulties related to environmental conservation: choosing which species need to be protected at

a given point in time and deciding when a group has sufficiently recovered to warrant less protection. Using the example of whale species the authors

state “we are barely at the point that we can determine with any kind of certainty when a population has recovered” (Gerber et al. 2000). Game et al. (2013) describe the ‘wicked’ complexity of conservation as not being rocket

science, that it is far more complex.

  8  

“The uncertainties are large due to the fact that most conservation problems

are embedded in socio-ecological systems possessing all the characteristics

of “complex systems.”

(Game et al. 2013)

These factors make conservation difficult, time consuming and expensive. In contrast the message delivered by the EC in the BG strategy is clear and

definitive, the growth of the blue economy, private investment and industrial expansion delivering jobs and wealth. On a variety of geographical scales

this disparity has an impact on the uptake of conservation practice, from the “lack of political will in member states” to implement the MSFD (Brennan et

al. 2014), to the negative perception of Thai fishers on Marine Protected Areas and the impact on their livelihoods (Bennet et al. 2014). While the

complexity of the conservation task may be daunting the repercussions for unchecked growth and conservation inaction are great, i.e. the further

degradation of marine environments and the critical ecosystem services they provide.

Resource Use and Impacts

As the ESEC (2012) highlights, while the EC (2012a) does acknowledge some

of the potential impacts of growth within the five key focus sectors, there is no mention of how the precautionary principle will be applied to address this

expansion. In 2012 the MSFD was the most recent legislative instrument dealing with marine and maritime issues in the EU, with the precautionary

principle at its centre. Today the MSFD must compete with the MSP directive, a more attractive instrument for states that favour growth over

conservation (Qiu et al. 2013). This, alongside the recognition that conservation is difficult and expensive to complete, creates a further impediment to the realisation of sustainable growth, contained within the BG

strategy.

The EC highlight maritime, coastal and cruise tourism as a key focus area for

Blue Growth. In the BG third interim report (EC 2012b) they outline the potential impacts of expansion within the cruise ship industry, including

energy use, pressure on water resources and waste management. In the

  9  

2012a communication the impact of the tourism sector as a whole is dealt with in one sentence:

“This (public investment and education) needs to be accompanied by

measures that help to improve the tourism offer for low-season tourism and

reduce the high carbon footprint and environmental impact of coastal

tourism.”

(EC 2012a)

The entire global tourism industry (not just the coastal segment) “is responsible for about 5% of global emissions of CO2 and en estimated 7.9%

of global warming” (Gossling 2013). What is absent from both EC communications is any reference to the cumulative impacts of the expansion of a sector that already contributes so dramatically to climate change. The

EC states, “a healthy environment is fundamental to any form of ‘blue’ tourism” (EC 2012a). Given the fundamentality of a pristine environment for

the success of this sector one would expect a more prominent placement of protection and conservation within any discussion of sectoral expansion.

Figure 2. Shrimp farms in East Africa, developed at the expense of ecologically significant

mangrove habitat (WWF 2015)

The EC (2012b) describes the potential impacts of aquaculture as:

discharges of nutrients, organic matter, microbial pathogens, drugs,

  10  

herbicides and fungicides; and the negative impact on wild fish populations of fish farm escapees. The growth of this sector in Asia is highlighted and

contrasted against the stagnation of the EU aquaculture industry (EC 2012b). What is not mentioned is the comprehensive and devastating impact the

unchecked growth of pond aquaculture has had in Asian countries (Huitric et al. 2002; Barboza 2007; WWF 2015). Habitat destruction (Fig. 2), water

pollution, contaminated food and depletion of wild shrimp stocks are listed by the WWF (2015) as impacts of Asian pond aquaculture. One must

seriously question the fore sight of the EC and their BG strategy if this is the type of market growth they aspire to.

A commonality between the EC documents reviewed is the conspicuous absence of recognition for ecosystem services, the contribution of our

natural environment towards our livelihoods and wellbeing. Robert Costanza discusses the true value of our oceans in a chapter for Seas at the

Millennium (2000):

“The oceans have been estimated to contribute a total of about US$ 21

trillion/year to human welfare (compared to a global GNP of about $25 trillion),

with about 60% of this from coastal and shelf systems and the other 40%

from the open ocean.”

(Costanza 2000)

When the oceans are framed against their true value, aspirations of growth

on the order of Asian aquaculture appear foolhardy, if not reckless. In this authors opinion there is no way to sustainably manage that kind of industrial

expansion. The purpose of continuous cycles of growth must also be questioned. Fig. 3 shows the division between the Gross National Product of various countries versus the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare as

presented by Lawn (2005). These figures show that “economic growth increases welfare until a threshold is reached where the costs of additional

growth begin to outweigh the benefits” (Costanza 2000).

  11  

Figure 3. Indices of GNP and ISEW (Lawn 2005)

The EC (2012a) place a heavy emphasis on technological innovation and efficiency, how this can: help the blue economy, create jobs, and maintain

public support for the exploitation of marine resources while also conserving ecological systems. The notion of increases in efficiency countering the

negative environmental impacts of market growth, called ‘decoupling’ has been challenged repeatedly (Jackson 2009; Fullerton 2010; ESEC 2012) and

does not constitute a sound argument in favour of continuous market growth.

“Perpetual material growth on a finite planet is biophysically unsustainable.

Reliance on technology to achieve not only heroic material productivity

improvements, but to actually achieve decoupling (more aggregate growth

with less throughput, every year, forever) is hubris”.

(Fullerton 2010)

  12  

This author comprehensively agrees with Fullerton in this assertion. When continuous growth is paired with a lack of knowledge and understanding

describing our environment and our influence within it, the consequences can be hidden and far-reaching. In “Late Lessons from Early Warnings” (EEA

2001), the authors offer case studies highlighting the impacts of industrial activity on humans, offering examples of the current and future increase in

cancer rates from ozone layer depletion and asbestos inhalation. The report outlines the benefits of applying the precautionary principle to situations

where a lack of data compounds an understanding of the potential affects of our actions.

Conclusion

From a market perspective the challenges the BG strategy will face are as

defined by the EC in 2012a: data and knowledge gaps, diffuse research efforts, and lack of skilled individuals to apply new technologies in the marine

sector. The research presented here does not address the second and third of these challenges because they are, in the authors opinion, surmountable.

Diffuse research efforts can be alleviated through cooperative effort such as Irelands National Maritime College and University College Cork (UCC) pairing.

Appropriate skills can be developed through courses like the UCC MSc in Coastal and Marine Management. The implications of data and knowledge gaps are further reaching. Data gaps do not only affect the confidence of

investors; they also impact our ability to account for our negative affect on the environment.

There is a significant lack of data describing European marine habitats. To allow fishing and mining of these ecosystems without sufficient

understanding of their functioning is directly at odds with the precautionary principle and with the notion of sustainable development. This is an example of the challenge Europe faces within its mixed message of economic

expansion and environmental protection. The EC interpretation of the benefits of more marine data is indicative of their stance on the value of

Europe’s marine areas, representing a reduction of risk for investors, opposed to supporting more effective environmental regulation.

  13  

Presently ecological limits may not hinder the market growth aspirations of the EC in the Blue Growth strategy. In the short term the biosphere will

continue to absorb the impacts of human influences. In the long term ecological limits will not pose a workable challenge to growth, they will be

insurmountable. The creation of policy instruments that favour development over protection, the inclusion of a variety of flexible opt-out clauses from

conservation instruments and the complexity of the conservation effort all facilitate the push for short term growth while undermining long term

sustainability. To sufficiently understand an ecosystem to allow appropriate protection may take decades, possibly centuries. The effort to protect vital

habitats, eco-systems and the services they provide for us does not have an end date. It is now and will be perpetual. The quarterly appraisal of financial

returns central to modern economics does not align with these types of timelines. To appease investors decisions and returns must come quickly, to

protect and preserve the environment decisions must be made slowly and methodically. This surely is the fundamental challenge to the progress of the European Blue Growth strategy; the balance between growth and protection,

if a balance between these two disparate interests does in fact exist.

  14  

References

Barboza, D. (2007) ‘In China, farming in toxic waters’, The New York Times [online] 15 December, Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/world/asia/15fish.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 [Accessed: 9 April 2015]

Bennett, N. J., Dearden, P. (2014) ‘Why local people do not support conservation: community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand’, Marine Policy, 44, 107-116

Brennan, J., Fitzsimmons, C., Gray, T., Raggatt, L. (2014) ‘EU marine strategy framework directive (MSFD) and marine spatial planning (MSP): which is the more dominant and practicable contributor to maritime policy in the UK?’, Marine Policy, 43, 359-366

Costanza, R. (2000) ‘The ecological, economic, and social importance of the oceans’ in Sheppard, C. ed. Seas at the Millennium: An Environmental Evaluation, Oxford: Elsevier, 393-403

Deegan, G. (2014) ‘Shell pump extra €100m into Corrib as project nears end’, The Independent [online], 21 July, Available: http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/shell-pump-extra-100m-into-corrib-as-project-nears-end-30445567.html [Accessed: 13 April 2015]

European Environmental Agency (2001), Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000, Copenhagen, EEA

Elfwing, T. (2014) Blue Growth and Environmental Challenges in the Baltic Sea [online] Available: http://www.euractiv.com/sections/sustainable-dev/blue-growth-and-environmental-challenges-baltic-sea-309984 [Accessed: 8 April 2015]

EMODnet (2011) EMODnet Central Portal [online] Available: http://www.emodnet.eu/ [Accessed: 11 April 2015]

European Commission 2012a, Blue Growth: opportunities for marine and maritime sustainable growth, Brussels, CEC

European Commission 2012b, Blue Growth: sustainable growth from the oceans, seas and coasts, Brussels, CEC

European Seas Environmental Cooperation (2010), Limits to Blue Growth, Brussels, ESEC

European Commission 2014b, Innovation in the Blue Economy: realising the potential of our seas and oceans for jobs growth, Brussels, CEC

  15  

European Commission (2014a) Maritime Affairs: Blue Growth [online] Available: http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/blue_growth/ [Accessed: 11 April 2015]

European Commission (2014c), Marine Knowledge 2020:roadmap, Brussels, CEC

Fullerton, J. (2010) Is Sustainable Growth and Oxymoron, The Future of Finance Blog [online] June 28th 2010. Available: https://capitalinstitute.org/blog/sustainable-growth-oxymoron/ [Accessed: 11 April 2015]

Game, E., Maijaard, E., Sheil, D., Madden, E. M. (2013) ‘Conservation in a wicked complex world; challenges and solutions’, Conservation Letters, 7, 3, 271-277

Gerber, L., DeMaster, D., Roberts, S. (2000) ‘Measuring Success in Conservation’. American Scientist, August, 88, 4, 316

Gössling, S. (2013) ‘National emission from tourism: An overlooked policy challenge?’, Energy Policy, 59, 433-442

Huitric, M., Folke, C., Kautsky, N. (2002) ‘Development and government policies of the shrimp farming industry in Thailand in relation to mangrove ecosystems’, Ecological Economics, 40, 441-455

Jackson, T. (2009) Prosperity Without Growth, 2nd ed., London, Earthscan

Lawn, P. A. (2005) ‘An assessment of the valuation methods used to calculate the index of sustainable economic welfare (ISEW), genuine progress indicator (GPI), and sustainable net benefit index (SNBI)’, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7, 185-208

Locale Consulting Pty Ltd., 2014. Aquatic Biotechnology Sector Strategy [online] Available: http://www.bluebiotechshoalhaven.com.au/portals/_default/skins/bluebiotech/documents/Aquatic.BioTechnology.Industry.Sector.Strategy-May2014.pdf

Mann, K. H., (2000) Ecology of Coastal Waters: With Implications for Management, 2nd ed, Hoboken: Wiley & Sons.

Mare Nostrum (2014) EU adopts maritime planning directive, but fate of coastal zone legislation unclear [online] Available: http://marenostrumproject.eu/news-events/blog/eu-adopts-maritime-planning-directive-but-fate-of-coastal-zone-legislation-unclear [Accessed: 10 April 2015]

  16  

Pawson, D. (2012) What we DON’T Know About the Deep Sea, The Ocean Blog [online] July 13th 2013. Available: http://ocean.si.edu/blog/what-we-dont-know-about-deep-sea [Accessed: 11 April 2015]

Qui, W., Jones, P.J.S. (2013) ‘The emerging policy landscape for marine spatial planning in Europe’, Marine Policy, 39, 182-190

Quinn, S. (2014) Growing tourism in marine and coastal areas [online] Available: http://www.failteireland.ie/News-Features/News-Library/Growing- tourism-in-marine-and-coastal-areas.aspx [Accessed: 22 March 2015]

United Nations Environmental Programme (2006) Green Economy in a Blue World, Nairobi, UNEP

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford, Oxford University Press

World Wildlife Federation (2015) Farmed Shrimp [online] Available: https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/farmed-shrimp [Accessed: 10 April 2015]