Several TBTI Global members and colleagues, together with their co-authors, have recently published an article about the need to rethink the concept of Blue Economy.
The article states that in order to fulfill the Blue Economy’s promise of sustainable and just ocean use, its scientific foundation must more fully integrate the social sciences. Drawing on insights from real-world scientific networking initiatives, the authors identify three key contributions of the social sciences and propose a strategy to redefine the Blue Economy. This strategy anchors knowledge in societal challenges and emphasizes co-creation, the science-policy interface, knowledge integration, and the values of accountability and care.
We asked two of the authors, José J. Pascual-Fernández & Dražen Cepić, for additional insights and reflections about the issues discussed in the article. Their answers can be found below.
© J. J. Pascual-Fernández
Q: In the article, you provide a thorough list of problems that arise from the implementation of the Blue Economy. You also note that Blue Economy’s “innovative, emancipatory, and ecosystem-based potential of the concept seems today unlikely to materialize.” Given this, is there a need for a concept like Blue Economy. Has it been really that helpful?
José J. Pascual-Fernández: The Blue Economy has done little to serve many of those working in ‘traditional’ marine sectors – and even less so for small-scale artisanal fishers. In some cases, it has even hastened their marginalization by shifting political and financial attention toward emerging industries, such as those showcased in the European Union’s first Blue Growth strategy (Brussels, 13 September 2012, COM(2012) 494 final, ‘Blue Growth: Opportunities for marine and maritime sustainable growth’). These early visions largely ignored both the opportunities within artisanal fisheries and their untapped potential for innovation.
Much of this push has been driven by the ambition to promote new activities at almost any cost, often backed by significant public resources. While later EU policy documents (17 May 2021, COM(2021) 240 final: ‘A New Approach to the EU’s Sustainable Blue Economy – Transforming the EU Blue Economy for a Sustainable Future’) offered a more nuanced outlook, in practice, public policy has stayed closer to the original, growth-centric model. Similar dynamics can be seen far beyond the EU.
Q: What about something like Blue Justice? Is it helpful? Does it align with what you’re talking about?
José J. Pascual-Fernández: When we talk about ‘Blue Justice’, we are not dealing with an abstract principle or a catchy slogan. We are talking about a very real question: Who gets to benefit from the ocean, and who pays the price when its resources are reallocated? Behind the glossy images of innovation and sustainability that often accompany Blue Economy narratives lies a quieter story – one of communities, cultures, and livelihoods that risk being erased in the name of ‘progress.’
The concept of ‘Blue Justice’ shines a spotlight precisely on those left behind by Blue Growth – or the ‘Blue Economy,’ as it has been rebranded. Many of these newer approaches rest on a convenient fiction: that the ocean is an open, unclaimed space where new activities can expand with minimal restrictions, and with little regard for their impact on existing livelihoods, such as fishing. This mindset has effectively sidelined – and, in many cases, harmed – the communities that have depended on these waters for centuries.
In reality, many of these new industries are established in areas where small-scale artisanal fisheries have operated for hundreds, sometimes thousands, of years. The social, cultural, and ecological impacts of displacing or constraining these activities are rarely given the weight they deserve. Similarly, the public funding that flows to these emerging sectors is seldom questioned, even when the benefits to society at large are uncertain or unevenly distributed.
In this context, speaking about ‘justice’ is not just relevant – it is essential. And doing so through a lens that is sensitive both to the ocean itself and to the generations of people whose lives and identities have been woven into it is not a matter of rhetoric; it is a matter of necessity.
© J. J. Pascual-Fernández
© R. Chuenpagdee
Q: What aspects of the Blue Economy need rethinking? Please provide some examples.
Dražen Cepić: The core issues requiring rethinking are the shift from a purely economic growth model to one that prioritizes sustainability and justice, as well as the power imbalances that arise from implementing the current Blue Economy model. In the paper, we examine how a concept originally devised to empower the powerless has been co-opted and leveraged mostly by the rich and powerful. While this requires rethinking how benefits are distributed and who controls ocean resources, specific examples of where this occurs include the rapid expansion of the cruise industry and offshore wind farms.
The cruise industry is now widely recognized as adversely affecting water, air, and land ecosystems, as well as life in cruise ports, whereas the growth of offshore wind farms raises concerns about the displacement of other marine activities, such as fishing. These examples illustrate how current Blue Economy implementation often prioritizes new economic sectors over existing communities and traditional marine activities.
Q: How can rethinking of the Blue Economy concept benefit small-scale fisheries? If possible, provide some examples.
José J. Pascual-Fernández: Too often, small-scale fishers see themselves as outsiders to the Blue Economy – a perception that was even more pronounced under the earlier Blue Growth narrative. Yet the reality is that the Blue Economy has become a powerful driver of investment, innovation, and decision-making in the allocation of marine space and resources. In such a context, self-exclusion is unlikely to be the best strategy. Instead, there is a pressing need to highlight both the direct impacts and the unintended side effects of certain Blue Economy policies, and to bring greater visibility to the value of activities like small-scale artisanal fishing – not only for their cultural and ecological significance, but also for their untapped potential in social and economic innovation.
One example comes from our own long-term work in the Canary Islands, where we have been engaged in an initiative to revitalize the marketing channels for artisanal fish products, especially locally caught tuna. Since 2018, we have been promoting their processing and distribution, including through educational programs in schools. We aim to expand this model in the coming years to other islands across the Atlantic, creating both economic opportunities and stronger community connections to the sea.
More broadly, the rethinking proposed in the article is urgently needed. The Blue Economy must be examined through the lens of the social sciences, which have so far played only a marginal role in shaping its policies and priorities. The analytical tools they provide can help reveal who receives most of the impacts, who truly benefits from emerging opportunities, or who risks being left behind. This is precisely the focus of our work within the COST Action *RethinkBlue*.
Q:Your article provides a detailed roadmap for how the scientific community should integrate social science for sustainability and justice into the Blue Economy. When it comes to other stakeholders, such as politicians, what will make them embrace this new approach in their work?
Dražen Cepić: This is a very important question that highlights a critical gap between scientific recommendations and political implementation. The article emphasizes that scholars should not shy away from engaging in the science-policy interface. However, it doesn’t deeply explore the political incentives and constraints that would make such adoption likely. For one, we know that politicians often operate under different pressures than scientists, with electoral cycles, interest group pressures, budget constraints, and political feasibility considerations that may not align with scientific recommendations.
Some of the obvious drivers which may motivate politicians to embrace the new approach to Blue Economy belong to the sphere of electoral pressures. However, we know that constituent demands largely depend on growing public awareness of ocean sustainability and social justice issues, which points to the broader challenge of knowledge production and co-creation. In addition, politicians may be motivated by economic arguments – recognizing that unsustainable practices threaten long-term economic returns, or that a paradigm shift is essential for mitigating risks and avoiding the costs of environmental degradation and social conflict. Yet again, persuading decision-makers to take this stand is a real challenge.
Ultimately, the paper acknowledges that achieving meaningful change is not a task for the scientific community alone. Success requires collaboration and the inclusion of diverse stakeholders, as well as creating broad coalitions. This coalition-building approach may be key to creating the political momentum.
