A sea of many colours – How relevant is Blue Growth for capture fisheries in the Global North, and vice versa?

Boonstra, Wiebren J.; Valman, Matilda; Björkvik, Emma

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.09.007

Cited by 60 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the Americas, natural capital approaches to ocean development are most common but specific plans are in relatively early stages compared with Europe and Oceania, with the exception of some Caribbean nations and a general interest in ecotourism and mariculture 35,36 . The European Union (EU) has focused on sectors such as offshore wind energy and mariculture and initially excluded fisheries 37 , reflecting the different objectives for ocean development across regions. Fisheries have been included in more recent EU plans 38 , given scientific evidence of their potential for growth if economic efficiency is improved 37 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enabling conditions for an equitable and sustainable blue economy

Cisneros‐Montemayor

Moreno-Báez

Reygondeau

et al. 2021

Nature

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extended Data Fig. 2 | Fuzzy sets for resource availability criteria. These are visual representations of the fuzzy sets for each indicator, including set shapes and thresholds, corresponding names and indicator ranges. Extended Data Fig. 3 | Fuzzy sets for economic viability criteria. These are visual representations of the fuzzy sets for each indicator, including set shapes and thresholds, corresponding names and indicator ranges. Article Extended Data Fig. 4 | Fuzzy sets for social equity and environmental sustainability criteria. These are visual representations of the fuzzy sets for each indicator, including set shapes and thresholds, corresponding names, and indicator ranges.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enabling conditions for an equitable and sustainable blue economy

Cisneros‐Montemayor

Moreno-Báez

Reygondeau

et al. 2021

Nature

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This means that important socio-economic streams can be created when small-scale actors exploit the area within OWFs. Boonstra et al (2018) also provided evidence of local small-scale fishers economically and efficiently harvesting fish in case studies from Sweden and Norway. Barriers to this MU stemmed from the perceived risk of fishing operations within the OWF, high insurance costs, as well as integrating health and safety (Table 5), and uncertainty regarding the cumulative and in-combination impacts.…”

Section: Owf and Fisheriesmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Further, Gee and Kannen (2011) argue that MU can enhance Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) as the MSP process envisions the marine space as being planned sparingly, according to Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for MSP (EC 2014b), to leave space to the decisions of others, including future generations. Although the term Multi-Use is not used in the Directive, the concept is anticipated by using the term coexistence, thus underscoring MUs' increasing significance in the policy arena (Boonstra et al 2018;Schäfer 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Demonstrating the Concept of Multi-Use Too Soon for the North Sea? Barriers and Opportunities from a Stakeholder Perspective

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multi-use (MU) has been promoted as a viable approach to the effective planning and mitigation of user-conflicts in the marine realm. Despite several research and pilot projects demonstrating the approach's feasibility and benefits, commercially viable MU applications remain patchy and few. Further, MU is neither systematically applied nor purposively planned for even in the imminent event of incompatible and conflicting use of marine space. This paper seeks to identify barriers and opportunities for mainstreaming MU based on desktop study and iterative stakeholder consultation. The findings reveal that the MU concept was frequently framed as 'co-location' or 'co-existence' and aimed towards mitigating conflict among users. Practice was ahead of theory with little attention to synergistic and efficiency aspects. Barriers for MU application include shortcomings in legislation, sectoral thinking, and burdensome administrative procedures. The main opportunity lies in creating a conducive policy environment where MU risks and transaction costs become low and competitive, respectively. Solutions at the sea basin and national level, upon which further MU application can be anchored, are proposed.

show abstract

“…In this paper we focus on Arctic capture fisheries and their future development potential (see also [14]). Globally, fish and seafood are amongst the most valuable renewable natural resources and most traded food commodities [12], and one of the Blue Growth sectors where some well-established management structures are readily in place.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, recent studies show that most marine capture fisheries have potential for economic growth while preserving ecological sustainability [15,16]. This potential can be realized by more efficient fisheries and fisheries management, enhancement of the recovery of overexploited fish stocks, proper product pricing including added product value, as well as regulating the key externalities, e.g., pollution or habitat destruction [14,15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global connectivity and cross-scale interactions create uncertainty for Blue Growth of Arctic fisheries

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TThe Arctic faces high expectations of Blue Growth due to future projections of easier access and increased biological productivity. These expectations are, however, often based on global and regional climate change projections and largely ignore the complexity of social-ecological interactions taking place across different temporal and spatial scales. This paper illustrates how such cross-scale interactions at, and across, different dimensions (e.g., ecological, socioeconomic and governance) can affect the development of Arctic fisheries; and potentially create uncertainties for future Blue Growth projections. Two Arctic marine systems, The Barents Sea and the Central Arctic Ocean (CAO), are used as focus areas. The former hosts productive fisheries and is mostly covered by the EEZs of Norway and Russia, while the latter is still mainly covered by sea-ice and is a high seas area with no multilevel governance system in place. The examples show that, both systems are affected by a number of processes, beyond the environmental change, spanning a wide range of dimensions, as well as spatial and temporal scales. To address the complexity of the Arctic marine systems calls for an increase in holistic scientific understanding together with adaptive management practices. This is particularly important in the CAO, where no robust regional management structures are in place. Recognizing how cross-scale dynamics can cause uncertainties to the current fisheries projections and implementing well-functioning adaptive management structures across different Arctic sub-systems can play a key role in whether the Blue Growth potential in Arctic fisheries is realized or lost.

show abstract

A sea of many colours – How relevant is Blue Growth for capture fisheries in the Global North, and vice versa?

Cited by 60 publications

References 34 publications

Enabling conditions for an equitable and sustainable blue economy

Enabling conditions for an equitable and sustainable blue economy

Is Demonstrating the Concept of Multi-Use Too Soon for the North Sea? Barriers and Opportunities from a Stakeholder Perspective

Global connectivity and cross-scale interactions create uncertainty for Blue Growth of Arctic fisheries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About