Institutionalizing the Blue Economy: an examination of variations and consistencies among Commonwealth countries

Abstract

The Blue Economy is a catch all term that is used to describe a wide variety of development approaches and priorities in the ocean and coastal areas. A number of distinct, and sometimes conflicting discourses have emerged in relation to the Blue Economy, which are distinguished by the degree to which they prioritize different development objectives. This paper explores the range of Blue Economy interpretations, governance strategies and implementation approaches that exist across Commonwealth countries. Key Blue Economy policy statements and governance instruments are analysed in order to ascertain the way the Blue Economy is being institutionalized at a national level, with reference to the Sustainable Development Goals and the Commonwealth Blue Charter. High-level Blue Economy objectives appear to prioritize economic and environmental objectives, with limited engagement with equity objectives including food security and gender equality. Blue Economy objectives are primarily being institutionalized through a diverse array of strategies, plans and policies with limited information on mechanisms for implementation. Finally, there are signs that the Blue Economy may be facilitating a greater degree of integration across sectoral management, with the emergence of range of boundary-crossing arrangements in a number of the countries examined.

This article is part of the theme issue ‘Nurturing resilient marine ecosystems’.

1. Introduction

The term ‘Blue Economy’ is a relatively new, and increasingly influential concept that first emerged in the lead up to the 2012 United Nations Convention on Sustainable Development (UNCSD), or Rio+20 conference [1]. Derived from the Green Economy concept, the Blue Economy shares the same broad objective of improvement of human wellbeing and social equity while reducing risk and ecological scarcities [2]. Since then a range of international governance instruments, including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and in particular the SDG 14 (life below water) have placed the ocean more centrally on the development agenda.

The Blue Economy provides a sustainable development model that looks to the ocean to provide new economic opportunities, as well as poverty alleviation, food security, sustainable livelihoods and the protection of the ocean. The Blue Economy can be, therefore, seen as a framework through which multiple SDGs can be advanced [3]. There is, however, currently a lack of clarity or consistency in regard to the most effective and practical means of governing a Blue Economy. One of the significant challenges associated with the concept of the Blue Economy is the range of different ways in which the term (and associated terms such as Blue Growth and sustainable ocean economy) are employed in different, and often competing ways. For example, Fabinyi et al. [4] found that China is employing the Blue Economy as a form of state led modernization and economic growth, while an analysis by Satizábal et al. [5] found that the Filipino Blue Economy agenda has focused heavily on payment for ecosystems services and natural capital accounting, with particular emphasis on Blue Carbon initiatives. These inconsistencies have been highlighted to be both a challenge and an opportunity for actors wishing to engage with the Blue Economy, as these differences create the potential for both conflict and flexibility [6–9].

The ambiguities surrounding the definition of a Blue Economy are closely related to interpretations of sustainability and what constitutes a ‘blue’ activity. This is reflected in debates over which maritime sectors, businesses and uses should be included within the definition [10]. Some actors and scholars argue that only those sectors that can truly be considered to be (or have the potential to be) both environmentally sustainable and socially equitable should be considered ‘Blue’, such as bioprospecting, blue carbon, blue energy, ecotourism, fisheries and mariculture [11,12]. Others argue for a more inclusive definition which incorporates a broad suite of economic activities that occur in and on coasts and oceans, including shipping and ports, mining and manufacturing industries [13]. They argue that a Blue Economy approach should cast a ‘blue’ (sustainable) lens over all development of the coastal and marine space, not just select sectors [14]. In practice, the selection of priority sectors is likely to be closely related to the existing capabilities and resource availability within individual jurisdictions, and this can have a large influence on the scope and nature of a country's Blue Economy.

There is no obvious ‘standard’ of Blue Economy governance at present, although a number of organizations like the World Wildlife Fund and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) have developed high-level guiding principles which identify what they would interpret to be a truly Blue Economy [15]. There are a range of mechanisms through which a coherent approach to the Blue Economy may be pursued. These might include the development of international guidelines or negotiated agreements [16]; however, these are likely to create significant challenges in terms of the development of a timely and sufficiently flexible approach, and may also drown out the voice of less powerful actors on the international stage [17]. Another approach is the development of regional strategies or guidelines, such as seen in the European and African Unions, which are more likely to reflect the unique circumstances of their members.

The Commonwealth Blue Charter is one intergovernmental agreement among 54 nation states, which aims to facilitate a cooperative and coordinated approach to ocean governance, with a particular focus on sustainable ocean development. The Blue Charter ‘Shared Ocean, Shared Values' adopted in 2018 is a commitment of Commonwealth nations which acknowledges the ocean's contribution to economic social and environmental health and the cultural heritage of Commonwealth nations, consistent with international law and agreements. The Blue Charter takes a principled approach, developed with reference to the high level international sustainable development norms that underpin the United Nations SDGs. The Blue Charter provides additional guidance and a platform for Commonwealth countries on the sustainable development of the ocean consistent with the Commonwealth Charter and aligned with the SDGs. It makes reference to the sustainable development and protection of the environment, the recognition of small and vulnerable states, the importance of young people and civil society, human rights, gender equality and dignity and good governance justice and peace, all derived from the Commonwealth Charter [18].

The Blue Charter is implemented through a series of Action Groups devoted to particular ocean issues. Each Action Group has member country ‘champions' who coordinate collaborative activities around that issue with support from the Commonwealth Secretariat. The Sustainable Blue Economy is one of the 10 Action Groups and is championed by Antigua and Barbuda and Kenya. The Action Group calls for an integrated approach which involves collaboration between Commonwealth countries to exchange successful strategies, information, knowledge and best practices, encouraging better stewardship of blue resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods and ocean ecosystem health.

The Commonwealth Secretariat has produced technical guidance to Commonwealth members on Blue Economy development and implementation with a particular focus on small states [19]. These documents do not seek to define the Blue Economy but instead offer supporting guidance relating to the Blue Economy, alongside more targeted information on specific sectors, including aquaculture, fisheries and renewable energy and biotechnology. They advocate coherent integrated policy and planning, the use of marine spatial planning (MSP), capacity/skills development, research capacity and engagement of civil society. Finally, they identify seven characteristics that they promote as being essential to an effective Blue Economy framework. These characteristics of a Sustainable Blue Economy align strongly with some elements of the Blue Charter and associated SDGs. The Blue Charter, and other regional agreements, therefore, provides a bridging mechanisms between country-level Blue Economy governance and broader international governance arrangements such as the SDGs. For example, table 1 highlights how the existing advice on the Blue Economy provided by the Blue Charter Action Group also supports a range of SDGs.

Table 1.

Blue Charter principles, Blue Economy working group characteristics of the Blue Economy and alignment with primary SDGs of relevance.

Blue Charter Blue Economy working group Blue Economy characteristics [19, p.16]	relevant SDGs
recognizing the value of natural capital as the basis for a healthy marine environment and the ocean economy	SDG 15: life on land*
	*SDG15.9 references linking decision making to ecosystem and biodiversity values which is the closest reference to natural capital in the SDGs
maintaining growth, fostering ‘blue’ business and promoting jobs in ‘blue’ sectors	SDG 8: decent work and economic growth
promoting energy from low-carbon and renewable sources	SDG 7: affordable and clean energy
addressing resource scarcity and promoting enhanced resource efficiency through improved and enhanced natural resource management	SDG12: responsible consumption and production
ensuring resilience from foreseeable impacts of climate change through developing adaptive capacities	SDG 13: climate action
building the technical capacity needed to achieve the government's stated goals	SDG 17.6: global partnerships for technology transfer science and innovation
	SDG 14.a: increase knowledge, research capacity and technology transfer
promoting sustainable management of our ecosystem and finite resources	SDG 14: conserve and sustainably use of the ocean, sea and marine resources for sustainable development

Just as there are diverse interpretations of the Blue Economy, there are also diverse means of institutionalizing the Blue Economy. Some countries have a dedicated Blue Economy strategy or plan, others have high-level policy statements or documents which either mirror or embed Blue Economy aspirations, often without using the specific Blue Economy terminology. In this paper, we examine how Commonwealth countries are pursuing their Blue Economy aspirations and the extent to which there are consistencies across the ways in which the Blue Economy is being defined, governed and enacted by member countries. Specifically, this paper will explore three Blue Economy governance questions in relation to how Commonwealth countries are engaging with the concept of the Blue Economy:

• (i) how are Commonwealth countries defining the Blue Economy, including the inclusion or exclusion of specific ocean sectors?
• (ii) how are Commonwealth countries governing the Blue Economy?
• (iii) how are Commonwealth countries implementing the Blue Economy?

In answering these questions we seek to better understand the degree to which existing national approaches are consistent with the Commonwealth Blue Charter and the United Nations SDGs. The paper is designed to be a high-level scoping review, and as such limits its analysis to overarching institutional arrangements at a national scale. For example, it incorporates Ministerial or Prime Ministerial statements, policies or plans, or legislation. It does not include subordinate legislation such as regulation or sector-specific plans or strategies.

2. Methods

We conducted a desk top review of publicly available materials on the Blue Economy in Commonwealth countries by region. This primarily involved extensive web-based searches on each country in relation to ‘Blue Economy’; ‘ocean policy’; ‘ocean economy’ and other related search terms. We then focused our analysis on those countries which have developed a dedicated Blue Economy/ocean strategy or included specific reference to oceans in the national development strategy.

In order to provide a common framework to explore how different countries are defining their Blue Economy, we compared the high-level objectives and visions of Blue Economy strategies with the United Nations SDGs. This is because they provide an agreed language against which the highly variable approaches can be compared. As such they could be used to provide a standardized approach to assessing coherence across countries. The alignment with the SDGs was conducted by the research team by comparing key aspects of the Governments statements on the Blue Economy with the SDGs. For example, a reference to the Blue Economy contributing to economic growth was aligned to SDG 8, while a reference to food security was aligned to SDG 2. In addition, specific reference to priority sectors were noted when available.

We also explored the institutional mechanisms through which each Commonwealth country have framed their governance approach to the Blue Economy and categorized them into one or more of the following areas:

• (i) policy, plan or strategy,
• (ii) legislation,
• (iii) ministry or department, and
• (iv) other (for example political statements of support, funding Blue Economy projects, etc.).

Finally, we also noted if there were any specific implementation actions or tools identified in each of the countries such as MSP or other Blue Economy projects linked to policy statements or plans on the Blue Economy.

3. Results

Of the 54 Commonwealth countries, 47 have a marine coastline. The degree to which Commonwealth countries are engaging with the Blue Economy fell into four categories:

• (i) countries with established institutional arrangements, such as policies, legislation or a dedicated Ministry. For example, Seychelles has a strategic policy framework and a Department of the Blue Economy;
• (ii) countries with institutional arrangements in development, such as India which has a draft Blue Economy plan currently under consultation;
• (iii) countries with political or governmental support for the Blue Economy but no existing institutional arrangements, for example, Kenya is a member of the High-level panel (HLP) for a Sustainable Ocean Economy and one of the two co-champions of the Blue Economy working group for the Blue Charter but does not appear to have any clear institutional arrangements to support the Blue Economy at this stage; and
• (iv) countries where we were unable to identify any arrangements which were specifically designed to support or develop a Blue Economy. This may be because no such arrangements exist, such as in those countries (7) without maritime jurisdiction, or it may mean these arrangements were missed in our search. For example, the chosen terminologies used by the relevant government to describe their ocean economy may not have been picked up by our search criteria (figure 1).

Figure 1.

Commonwealth countries highlighting: (i) countries with established institutional arrangements in place (as detailed in table 2) and their alignment with SDGs; (ii) countries with institutional arrangements in development and their alignment with SDGs where possible; (iii) countries with political or governmental support for the Blue Economy, but without current institutional arrangements; and (iv) countries that do not have any form of institutional arrangements to support the Blue Economy.

Of the 47 Commonwealth countries with maritime jurisdiction, 33 (70%) are currently actively engaging with the Blue Economy in some way. This includes 16 with established institutional arrangements in place, eight with institutional arrangements in development and nine with Governmental or political support for the concept but no existing institutional arrangements (figure 1). Institutional arrangements were found across the different regions. Currently, eight of the 12 African countries, all eight Asian countries, nine of the 13 countries in the Caribbean and the Americas, two of the three European countries and six of the 11 Pacific countries in the Commonwealth are engaging with the Blue Economy in some capacity. In addition, of the 16 countries with institutional arrangements in place, the majority (11) are Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Notably, the larger economies in the Commonwealth, particularly the UK, Australia and New Zealand have embraced the Blue Economy as a research and development priority but do not appear to have institutional arrangements in place as yet which specifically focus on the Blue Economy development. For example, Australia is a member of the HLP and has a large Cooperative Research Centre dedicated to the Blue Economy, but has a largely redundant Ocean Policy which has not been updated since it was released in 1998. Canada is in the process of developing its Blue Economy strategy. A full list of the institutional arrangements for all the Commonwealth countries can be found in the electronic supplementary material, table S1.

The most common method of institutionalizing the Blue Economy across the Commonwealth, is through the development of a policy, plan or strategy, many of which are currently in development (table 2). Given the diverse sectors and interest groups with a stake in the Blue Economy, a number of countries have also developed integrative mechanisms to promote harmonization and coordination across the ministries or departments that manage them. The establishment of a dedicated ministry or agency was found to have occurred in 13 of the Commonwealth countries examined. For example, in 2017, the Government of Bangladesh established the ‘Blue Economy Cell’ with the mandate to coordinate Blue Economy initiatives across sectoral ministries [20]. The government of Seychelles established a dedicated Blue Economy department to coordinate Blue Economy implementation [14]. Relatively few countries had legislation specifically focused on the Blue Economy. The exceptions were Mozambique which has an established Sea Law and the Bahamas and Belize which both have legislation under development (table 2).

Table 2.

Institutional arrangements to support the Blue Economy in Commonwealth countries.

region (number of countries)	policy, plan or strategy		legislation		ministry or department
	under development	in place	under development	in place
Africa (8)	3	3		1	4
Asia (8)	2	1			2
Caribbean and Americas (9)	4	2	2		4
Europe (2)	1				1
Pacific (6)	1	4			2
Total (33)	11	10	2	1	13

A large number of countries (12), primarily those with plans still in development, did not have a clear publicly available statement of their Blue Economy objectives which would allow us to assess their alignment with SDGs. Those that did have clear objectives or visions tended to almost always prioritize SDG 14 (life below water) and SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth) (figures 1 and 2). For example, Operation Phakisa, South Africa's primary Blue Economy strategy, has the following objective which clearly aligns with SDG 8: ‘Our vision is to double our blue GDP to 20 per cent in the medium term, while realizing social-economic development and dynamic balance of resources and environment’.

Figure 2.

Alignment between SDGs and institutional arrangements to support the Blue Economy in Commonwealth countries. (Online version in colour.)

Beyond SDGs 8 and 14, we found limited alignment with SDGs in the high-level objectives or aspirations of the countries we examined. For example, SDG 13 (climate action) was only referenced in the Blue Economy objectives of six countries. Similarly, Seychelles, Samoa and Vanuatu were the only countries to make explicit mention of food security (SDG 2) in their Blue Economy vision or objectives. We note, however, that the more detailed institutional arrangements which sit underneath these objectives may link to a broader range of SDGs.

Where specific priority sectors were mentioned they most commonly focused on fisheries and tourism, followed by ports and shipping (figure 3). For example, Papua New Guinea has a stated objective to develop manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, tourism, fisheries and ocean resources to generate around 70 per cent of GDP by 2050. India's draft policy framework for the Blue Economy India identifies seven priority areas, of which five relate specifically to particular sectors, namely tourism; marine fisheries, aquaculture and fish processing; manufacturing, emerging industries, trade, technology; services and skill development; logistics, infrastructure and shipping (including trans-shipments); and coastal and deep-sea mining and offshore energy. Malaysia's public statements on the Blue Economy include a strong focus on ports, shipping and marine transport as priority sectors. It should be noted that the industries identified by each country as priority sectors are likely to be a function of a range of different influences as well as the existing context. For example, these priority sectors may reflect the existing strengths or capabilities of a given country and represent an aspiration to consolidate those strengths. They may equally represent a situation whereby resources might exist (such as deep-sea minerals) but capacity is weak, and therefore the objective of the Blue Economy approach is to build that capacity in order to be better positioned to capitalize on these existing assets. A full list of the priority sectors for Commonwealth countries (where this information is available) can be found in the electronic supplementary material, table S2.

Figure 3.

Priority sectors are identified within Blue Economy outputs from Commonwealth countries. (Online version in colour.)

Finally, it was often difficult to determine the institutional arrangements that would be implemented in order to enact Blue Economy plans and strategies. For the few countries that referenced implementation approaches (for example Seychelles and India) there are a number of commonly referenced approaches to implementation. The most commonly referenced implementation arrangements were Blue Financing and investment as means to stimulating Blue Economy development. MSP is explicitly referenced as priority within the Indian, Mozambique and Seychelles policy documents. The Indian draft plan, as well as the Seychelles strategy, make reference to the development of a National Accounting Framework for Blue Economy and Ocean Governance. Both also point to the need for research and development as well as capacity building to enable Blue Economy development. Finally, reflecting the complex geopolitical situation in the region both the Indian and the Seychelles strategies focus on maritime security and marine domain awareness.

4. Discussion

Although the concept of the Blue Economy has been debated extensively in international fora, examples of Blue Economy implementation are relatively few [14]. In the case of the Commonwealth countries we investigated, this is possibly a reflection of the extent to which the national development of the countries we investigated was dependent on the coastal and ocean space. That is, those countries with a high dependence on the ocean, such as SIDS were very likely to have developed Blue Economy institutional arrangements, whereas the larger more diversified economies, such as Australia and Canada, were lagging in their Blue Economy development.

Implementation of the Blue Economy at a national scale appears to be slow but gaining considerable momentum in Commonwealth countries. A large number of draft plans or policies are in development and once completed will mean that 70% of the Commonwealth countries with a maritime coastline will have some institutional arrangements in place for the Blue Economy. Despite this, there is significant variation in the structure and content, ranging from dedicated Blue Economy plans and strategies, or objectives within a wider national economic development strategy, to discreet ocean/Blue Economy sector-based projects.

Within the existing institutional arrangements, there is further variation on how the Blue Economy is being conceived. Some approaches detail priority sectors and strategies for growth, others set growth targets for the Blue Economy overall and some contain more general principles or objectives around ocean use and conservation. It is clear that the Blue Economy is being both interpreted and institutionalized in a variety of different ways across the Commonwealth.

One clear indication that the Blue Economy is having an institutional impact on ocean governance is the number of countries that have established cross-sectoral governance arrangements to facilitate harmonization and policy coherence. Nearly a quarter of all Commonwealth countries in total, and over a third of those that have institutionalized the Blue Economy in some way, have established a dedicated department or Ministry or some other form of whole of government organization in order to facilitate Blue Economy development. This is a positive step for encouraging more integrated approaches to ocean governance as it creates a mandate for greater cooperation across diverse maritime sectors. It also may assist in creating a framework to facilitate more transparent and inclusive decision making across the sectors included to achieve sustainable development outcomes in line with SDG 17 [21]. It should be noted, however, that this inclusivity may be limited to the industry stakeholders unless efforts are made to broaden decision making to include other relevant stakeholders and ocean citizens [22].

Despite these signs of a growing momentum for national-level institutional arrangements to support a Blue Economy as an integrated framework, our assessment reveals that current arrangements appear to focus on a relatively narrow conceptualization of the Blue Economy (table 3). The Commonwealth's Blue Economy working group and the broader Blue Charter principles, as well as the United Nations SDGs highlight a diverse array of sustainable development objectives that a Blue Economy might pursue; however, these do not appear to have translated into country-level objectives. In practice, high-level objectives at a national scale are largely concentrated on economic growth and conservation and protection of marine environments (SDGs 8 and 14). Notably, the Blue Charter Blue Economy working group prioritizes renewable energy and climate change adaptation, yet these were less prominent in the objectives of the countries we examined. This may in part be owing to the level of analysis we conducted—focusing only on high-level visions and objectives. However, it is these high-level objectives that will drive the prioritization of actions and implementation. Without active engagement with a broader range of objectives, there is a danger that the potential for the Blue Economy to address multiple SDGs may be lost.

Table 3.

Comparing the approach of Commonwealth countries with the characteristics of the Blue Economy prepared by the Blue Charter Blue Economy working group.

Blue Charter Blue Economy working group Blue Economy characteristics	implementation of the Blue Economy in Commonwealth countries
recognizing the value of natural capital as the basis for a healthy marine environment and the ocean economy	specific reference to natural capital accounting was found in the Seychelles and Indian plans
maintaining growth, fostering ‘blue’ business and promoting jobs in ‘blue’ sectors	economic growth is one of the two top priorities of established Blue Economy objectives in the countries we investigated
promoting energy from low-carbon and renewable sources	renewable energy is a listed priority sector in India, Grenada and Malta
addressing resource scarcity and promoting enhanced resource efficiency through improved and enhanced natural resource management	Malta, India and Seychelles reference sustainable and efficient value chains, services and logistics and production technologies
ensuring resilience from foreseeable impacts of climate change through developing adaptive capacities	climate action is listed as a priority in the established Blue Economy objectives of Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, India, South Africa, Seychelles and Brunei Darussalam
building the technical capacity needed to achieve the government's stated goals	capacity development is directly referenced by the Seychelles, India, Fiji and Mozambique
promoting sustainable management of our ecosystem and finite resources	sustainable use of the ocean is one of the two top priorities of established Blue Economy objectives in the countries we investigated
facilitate integrated approach through reforming governance arrangements	twelve Commonwealth countries have established a dedicated ministry or agency to assist in harmonization and policy coherence

There also appears to be a number of gaps in the conceptualization of the characteristics of a Blue Economy by the working group. The Blue Charter contains a number of principles which prioritize human rights, gender equality and dignity as well as a fair, equitable and inclusive enabling environment for men and women in maritime industries. These principles, which align with SDGs 5 and 4, respectively, do not appear to be reflected in either the working group characteristics or the high-level Blue Economy objectives of the countries we examined, although we note they may be considered in future or current implementation plans. For example, we found only two references to gender in the Blue Economy approaches we explored—in Antigua and Barbuda and the Maldives.

There is a notable disconnect between the heavy focus on fisheries in the approaches of a large number of the Commonwealth countries we examined and the absence of explicit consideration of food and nutrition security, with the exception of Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Samoa. This is consistent with a range of emerging concerns over the absence of active consideration of food security in Blue Economy discourses [23].

Finally, there is very limited information available on how the Blue Economy will be implemented with very limited details available in relation to implementation approaches or enabling mechanisms, such as MSP and natural capital accounting. This may be owing to difficulties in sourcing some of the detail that sits beneath national-level plans or policies, or may reflect the relative youth of many of these policies and plans, with implementation planning still underway or yet to commence.

5. Limitations of the study

This paper examined high-level institutional arrangements that have been enacted to support Commonwealth countries to deliver on Blue Economy aspirations. It was beyond the scope of this paper to examine other enabling factors that might support, or restrict, Blue Economy development. These include subordinate legislation (such as regulations), financing mechanisms, arrangements with donors or other partner organizations and existing trade flows and resource availability. These are critical factors which will all influence the ways in which a Blue Economy is conceptualized and enacted in any given country. Further research is required to explore if and how the high-level institutional arrangements in place interact with these enabling conditions.

In addition, this study did not examine the extent to which the institutional arrangements that have been put in place have been effective or successful in achieving their stated objectives, or in improving coherence. At present, there is the absence of clear performance criteria or management indicators through which to monitor the success of Blue Economy governance arrangements. This remains a priority area of future research.

6. Conclusion

Our analysis allows for some initial comments on the status of implementation of the Blue Economy in Commonwealth countries including the extent to which they align with SDGs and the Commonwealth Blue Charter. One of the enduring characteristics of the concept of a Blue Economy is that it is a highly malleable concept that tends to be moulded to fit the context in which it is being situated [3]. Given that there is no one common understanding or definition of the Blue Economy it is of little surprise that there is no commonly agreed approach to institutionalizing the concept. Instead, the local context appears to drive the scope of the Blue Economy and the balance between conservation, economic activity, benefit sharing and the enabling environment to achieve it.

While there have been calls to develop a common understanding of the Blue Economy [16] there is a tension between proposing a common framework and creating sufficient flexibility for countries to develop an approach which suits their own circumstances and objectives. This is where a high-level agreement of principles, goals or targets, such as the SDGs, can assist in providing guidance on the general direction and shared objectives of the Blue Economy, while also allowing for the details of implementation to be adapted to national contexts. Intergovernmental agreements, such as the Blue Charter, may assist in providing crucial bridging mechanisms between the SDGs and country-level Blue Economy planning and implementation. However, our study reveals that the Blue Charter is not currently living up to this potential to ensure that the Blue Economy will prioritize a more fulsome array of social, economic and environmental objectives. Our findings support a growing body of work which, in particular, highlights the absence of critical engagement with social equity dimensions of Blue Economy governance [11,23,24]. It suggests that the Blue Charter, or other regional agreements, could and should be playing a more active role in encouraging member states to engage with a broad suite of SDGs in their Blue Economy planning and institutionalization. Despite this, there are signs that the Blue Economy may be facilitating a greater degree of integration across sectoral management arrangements, with the emergence of a range of boundary-crossing arrangements within a number of countries in response to Blue Economy ambitions [6]. The extent to which this is contributing to effective integrated ocean management is worthy of future research.

Data accessibility

The data are provided in the electronic supplementary material [25].

Authors' contributions

M.V.: conceptualization, investigation, methodology, supervision, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; D.B.: data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; C.R.: data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing.

All authors gave final approval for publication and agreed to be held accountable for the work performed therein.

Conflict of interest declaration

We declare we have no competing interests.

Funding

This research was funded by the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security (ANCORS) at the University of Wollongong.