Protecting the Earth’s oceans is problematic when profit is the leading concern.
This article was produced by
Earth • Food • Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
More Articles in Environment
Guides
Articles with Similar Tags
Authors in Environment
Introduction
In response to the increasing global demand for resources and the economic pursuits that accompany it, attention to the world’s oceans continues to grow. But how should marine resources be properly managed? The blue economy is an umbrella term that examines the planet’s oceans from an economic perspective, referring to the sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods, and job creation while preserving the health of ocean ecosystems.
On one side of the coin are the exploitative activities and economic sectors, including fisheries, aquaculture, maritime transport, tourism, offshore renewable energy sources such as wind and tidal power, and biotechnology. On the other side are marine conservation efforts.
Global platforms, including the United Nations, the World Bank, the European Commission, the Commonwealth of Nations, and the Center for the Blue Economy, have called for ocean sustainability efforts.
On March 1, 2024, the United Nations Environmental Assembly adopted a resolution on “strengthening ocean efforts to tackle climate change, marine biodiversity loss and pollution.” A press release issued by the European Commission after the session stated, “By submitting and negotiating the resolution, the European Union and its Member States reiterated their determination to play a leading role in protecting, conserving, restoring, and sustainably utilizing the world’s oceans.”
The concept of the blue economy is rooted in the recognition that the oceans are vital to human well-being and the global economy. Still, they are also threatened by overexploitation, pollution, and climate change. Therefore, the blue economy aims to strike a balance between economic development and the need to protect and restore the ocean environment, ensuring that future generations can continue to enjoy marine resources.
Fundamental principles of the blue economy include:
- Sustainability: Ensuring ocean-related activities do not deplete resources or harm the environment.
- Inclusive Growth: Promoting economic activities that benefit local communities and alleviate poverty.
- Innovation: Encouraging the development of new technologies and practices that enhance productivity and sustainability in using ocean resources.
- Governance: Implementing effective policies, regulations, and international cooperation to manage ocean resources responsibly.
The blue economy is increasingly recognized as a vital component of global efforts to achieve sustainable development and mitigate climate change, particularly in coastal and island nations that heavily rely on marine resources.
Challenges in Defining the Blue Economy
There is no consensus on the definition of “blue economy.” The term generally refers to the purportedly “sustainable” economic activities associated with oceans, seas, and coastal waters. Yet, that’s where consensus on the concept breaks down. The blue economy requires a clear, widely agreed-upon definition to be applied effectively.
Several organizations have proposed their own suggested terminologies. For example, in 2023, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association defined the blue economy as “the sustainable, equitable and socially inclusive use of ocean and Great Lakes resources to benefit economies, livelihoods and ocean ecosystem health.” Other proposed definitions have been put forward by organizations, including the World Bank, the United Nations, the European Commission, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The World Wildlife Fund acknowledges there is no widely accepted definition.
Defining the blue economy is much more than semantics. Some people mistakenly believe that it was intended to benefit capitalism. This is a widespread phenomenon and is not just limited to corporations. In some ways, it is similar to the misconceptions that arose from the use of the term “green economy.”
People who live far from the ocean may not fully grasp how much humans rely on the sea for survival, including its role in regulating the climate, providing food sources, and generating oxygen, even if they don’t directly access it for their daily needs. This can lead to a view of the blue economy as simply supporting coastal transportation, recreational activities, or ecotourism.
However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency states, “Approximately half a billion people globally depend on coral reef ecosystems for food, coastal protection, and income from tourism and fisheries.” And yet, coral reefs are dying at an alarming rate due to ocean acidification, a consequence of the climate crisis. They are also being destroyed by harmful coastal development—development that could be part of the blue economy.
Development or Destruction?
The United Nations affirmed that the blue economy would assist in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals—especially Goal 14, “Life Below Water.” This triggered a rapid expansion across all facets of the blue economy, with projections suggesting this trend would persist.
Marine economic activities include fisheries, aquaculture, maritime transport, coastal renewable energy, seabed mining, bioprospecting, marine biotechnology, and waterborne tourism. These activities harm marine health to some degree and contribute to many problems, including biodiversity erosion, ocean acidification, climate change, water and air pollution, and even noise pollution that threatens marine life, including whales and dolphins.
The corporate extractive sector, in particular, has been looking for new territories to extract minerals such as manganese, cobalt, copper, nickel, and rare earth elements. This has become increasingly problematic due to the risks involved in resource extraction. Though the ocean may seem like an unlimited expanse that profiteers can indefinitely exploit for financial gain, it has natural limits.
“[A]lthough scientists and campaigners have been warning of the consequences of our rampant exploitation for decades, time is now running out to protect our oceans,” Hugo Tagholm, executive director of Oceana in the UK, and Callum Roberts, a professor of marine conservation at the Center for Ecology and Conservation at the University of Exeter, wrote in EuroNews in November 2023, “We like to think of our ocean as infinite, but the truth is, it cannot stand this industrial-scale exploitation.”
The Earth’s marine ecosystems are extremely valuable to the global economy. They deliver essential ecosystem services to life on the planet and provide sustenance for billions of people. More than 3 billion individuals depend on the ocean for their livelihoods. Most live in developing nations; humans and countless other species rely on healthy, thriving oceans.
Bluewashing: Covering Up Bad Behavior
Terminologies such as “green economy” and “blue economy” might seem promising, but are often noted as cover-ups for harmful activities. “[T]he blue economy is not a benign concept offering a win-win for the economy and the environment,” said John Childs, a senior lecturer at the Lancaster Environment Center at Lancaster University, United Kingdom, and the co-editor of a special section in the Journal of Political Ecology in 2019 that presented several papers on the blue economy.
Childs said the papers he reviewed suggest that the blue economy is “another capitalist fix in which global capital is seeking to reproduce itself, to keep making money and create a surplus. This is happening as we get to the point where much of the planet’s landmass [has] been appropriated.”
“If ‘greenwashing’ is the practice of making unsubstantiated or misleading claims about the environmental benefits of an action, then perhaps we need a new term—‘bluewashing’—to cover coastal and marine development initiatives which fail to deliver on their environmental and social promises,” wrote Nicole Leotaud, the executive director of the Caribbean Natural Resources Institute, in 2017. “Personally, I’m tired of labels that confuse and mask the development principles we are seeking,” she added.
Threats to the Marine Ecosystem
Some protections benefit the oceans, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), established in 1982 to provide an international legal framework for using and protecting the marine environment. However, not all nations agree to these protections. Additionally, ocean-bordering countries have their own laws, creating a patchwork of often poorly enforced rules. Contested waters regularly result in tumultuous situations.
Many maritime crimes have a negative impact on oceanic health, including illegal fishing and harvesting, ocean dumping, and pollution. In addition to overfishing, where necessary species are removed from the food chain, and accelerating biodiversity loss, unsustainable industrial development along coastlines has also contributed to ocean pollution. “All of these threats erode the capacity of the ocean to provide nutritious food, jobs, medicines, and pharmaceuticals as well as regulate the climate,” stated a 2020 article in the journal Nature, “Women, poor people, Indigenous communities, and young people are most affected.”
Climate change is another serious threat to our oceans. “[I]ncreasing sea levels and making the ocean warmer, more acidic, and depleted in oxygen,” the Nature article pointed out. The ocean has absorbed more than 90 percent of the excess gas trapped by greenhouse gas emissions, but that is only a portion of the damage. “Unsustainable development along coastlines destroys coral reefs, seagrass beds, salt marshes, and mangrove forests, which provide vital biodiversity reservoirs, sequester carbon, and buffer coasts against storm surges,” the article added. Due to human intervention, plastics and nutrient runoff contaminate the water, resulting in the death of marine life.
We must not ignore the hazards of shipping. Sea vessels use heavy fuel oils that release soot, sulfur, and carbon dioxide, resulting in substantial emissions of certain air pollutants and accounting for approximately 3 percent of carbon dioxide emissions.
There are many parts of the ocean where life has died. These sections contain layers of crude oil and have been contaminated to extremely hazardous levels. There are many parts of the ocean where oil from spills or natural seeps has settled onto the seafloor, forming layers of hydrocarbons that persist for years. In some locations—such as around the Deepwater Horizon spill site—measurements reveal sediment contamination extending many kilometers across, and bottom-dwelling organisms are severely impacted.
According to a 2021 paper published in Environmental Science & Technology, “Large scale persistent ecological effects included impacts to deep ocean corals, failed recruitment of oysters over multiple years, damage to coastal wetlands, and reduced dolphin, sea turtle, and seabird populations.” A Bayelsa State Oil and Environment Commission 2023 report revealed that the “concentration of noxious chemicals, such as Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, exceeds safe levels by a factor of 1 million according to some of the samples taken,” pointing to the impact of oil extraction in Bayelsa in the Nigerian Delta. These zones may not always be completely devoid of life, but they can suffer a severe loss of biodiversity and ecological function.
Although significant oil spills receive considerable media attention, the ongoing oil flow into the sea represents the bulk of the problem. Hundreds of millions of gallons of oil enter our oceans each year, but most escape media attention. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, only a fraction of that—5 percent—comes from what the U.S. Department of Commerce labels as “significant” oil spills.
Some of the most prominent damage to ocean ecosystems appear to come from deep-sea mining on a massive level, which destroys the seabed. It harms marine and aquatic ecosystems while impoverishing coastal communities that depend on fisheries and other resources. The kind of damage that it could cause is almost impossible to calculate, especially since deep-sea mining is a relatively new endeavor.
In a press statement in August 2024, Dr. Enric Sala, the National Geographic Explorer in Residence and Pristine Seas founder, said:
“Giving the green light to deep-sea mining would open a Pandora’s box of unknown impacts. Mining the seabed will inevitably affect fragile sea life that we barely know. And a [July 2024] study … showed that deep-sea polymetallic nodules produce oxygen in total darkness, which may be key to ocean health. The more we look in the deep sea, the more we discover. Rushing to mine the seabed will surely go down in history as an environmental disaster we should have stopped before it started. It is short-sighted to destroy, in minutes, ecosystems that have taken millennia to develop. Countries worldwide have so much more to gain by protecting vital parts of the ocean than signing them away for short-term profit.”
On April 24, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to permit deep-sea mining, despite objections from more than 30 countries worldwide. This executive order, spurred by a proposal from The Metals Company requesting U.S. approval for mining in international waters, would circumvent the authority of the International Seabed Authority (ISA), a U.N.-affiliated agency that is currently considering standards for deep-sea mining worldwide.
“This executive order flies in the face of NOAA’s mission,” Jeff Watters, Ocean Conservancy’s vice president for external affairs, said. “NOAA is charged with protecting, not imperiling, the ocean and its economic benefits, including fishing and tourism; and scientists agree that deep-sea mining is a deeply dangerous endeavor for our ocean and all of us who depend on it.”
Watters explains that areas of the U.S. seafloor where test mining took place over 50 years ago “still haven’t fully recovered.” Deep-sea mining impacts the entire ocean and not just the ocean floor. It also affects the sectors reliant on the sea, especially fisheries and the $321 billion fishing industry in the U.S. As the eyes and ears for U.S. air and water, NOAA provides Americans with accessible and accurate weather forecasts, tracks hurricanes and tsunamis, and responds to oil spills. Most of all, NOAA keeps seafood on the table. “Forcing the agency to carry out deep-sea mining permitting while these essential services are slashed will only harm our ocean and our country,” Watters continues.
“It’s not just our country this executive order would harm: this action has far-reaching implications beyond the U.S. By unilaterally pursuing mining in international waters in defiance of the rest of the world, the Administration is opening a door for other countries to do the same—and all of us, and the ocean we all depend on, will be worse off for it.”
The Blue Economy in African Coastal Waters
Just as vast tracts of global land have been acquired to extract fossil fuels in the U.S. alone, Earthjustice, a nonprofit public interest environmental law organization, reported in 2021 that “[t]he oil and gas industry has over 26 million acres of land under lease.” The same phenomenon is being duplicated in the sea. The well-being of more than 200 million Africans who depend on fisheries for food and nutritional security is at risk, according to Mohammed Awer, CEO of WWF Kenya, in July 2023. Once corporate interests claim bodies of water as their own, they will likely become inaccessible to those who make their living from the sea and nearby coastal communities.
Industrial installations, such as crude oil platforms, establish control over the surrounding waters, ostensibly as security buffers. Fishermen who have tried to find more sea life in the high seas have reported that large parts of the continental shelf and beyond are off-limits because extractive industries have claimed and cordoned them off with controlled installations.
Unregulated industrial fishing in West African coastal waters, often conducted by foreign fleets, poses a significant threat to fishermen’s livelihoods. According to “Fishy Networks: Uncovering the companies and individuals behind illegal fishing globally,” a 2022 report by the Financial Transparency Coalition, more than 40 percent of cases involving illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing by industrial vessels from January 2010 to May 2022 occurred in West Africa. More than one-third of global fisheries were overfished in 2019, mainly due to illegal fishing.
Access to healthy water bodies is becoming increasingly difficult by the day due to industrial installations and related pollution. Massive oil spills have been the result of different security forces at work, including blowouts at wellheads at Santa Barbara River, a fire at the Ororo-1 well (which erupted in 2020 in Nigeria and was still raging nearly a year later), explosions of floating production storage and offloading (FSPO) units; the blowing up of oil-laden vessels; and burning of bush refineries.
Paying to Pollute
In the current blue economy paradigm, privatization prioritizes monetary benefits over ecosystem health. Water is not viewed as a commodity in this construct, and the buying and selling of oceanic water and aquatic resources would be prioritized over other considerations.
Under blue economy systems, polluting companies might simply pay to dump mine tailings and other waste directly into water bodies. It could also open the space for speculators in water futures, thus raising the stakes against access to clean and safe water for the 4 billion people worldwide who face extreme water scarcity for at least one month every year.
Promise and Peril for Ocean Economy
A 2016 OECD report indicated a significant increase in ocean-related economic activities by 2030, saying that “[t]he new ‘ocean economy’ is driven by a combination of population growth, rising incomes, dwindling natural resources, responses to climate change and pioneering technologies.” The projections indicate that the global value added by ocean-based industries is expected to grow from $1.5 trillion in 2010 to more than $3 trillion by 2030.
While the growth of the ocean economy does offer potential advantages for coastal communities, it’s essential to monitor the adverse outcomes that ocean-based economic development can also yield. These challenges can include the growth of existing economic disparities, the displacement of local communities and their means of livelihood, pollution, harm to environmental sustainability and biodiversity, and an infringement on human rights.
With all of these stressors connected to the exploitation of the oceanic ecosystem, safeguards must be implemented.
Physical capital and technology have been given such priority in the world economy that other critical factors, such as human resources and natural resources, are often ignored or downplayed in significance, resulting in a lack of real balance in sustainability.
The drive for profit above the health of the planet and its people leads to the transformation and, often, the destruction of environmental resources without regard to planetary or social limits.
For coastal communities, the ocean is not just an arena for economic activities but a space for culture, spirituality, and interactions with nature. Connections to the ocean are a way of life. The prevailing capitalist bent may dismiss this reality as an inefficient use of aquatic ecosystems. Yet, it highlights the origins of the polycrisis in our world today.
When governments and corporations decide what should be done, they often overlook the people closest to the water and the fact that they possess more knowledge about what is necessary to protect it. The situation becomes more troubling when the uninhabited deep sea is discussed. For example, in 2024, the Associated Press reported that Shell Oil in Nigeria is selling off its onshore oil fields and relocating operations to the deep sea, where there is limited oversight of the damage being done. Even if the harm being done in the deep sea stays out of sight, its results still affect everyone onshore. This is a significant concern anywhere near the water worldwide.
While some countries believe that opening their maritime territories to investment will improve their economies, they invite the destruction of irreplaceable resources.
Norway Explores Deep Mining in the Seas
In January 2024, Norway’s Parliament voted to allow mining companies to search a large area of the country’s waters, approximately the size of Italy, for the minerals needed to build electric cars, mobile phones, and solar panels. “If you find the resources, and if you have the technology that shows that you can develop this with acceptable [environmental] impact, then you will have your green light,” said Walter Sognnes, CEO of the startup mining company Loke Marine Minerals, according to a January 2024 Wired article.
Other companies are also looking to exploit the Norwegian waters, with the startup Green Minerals expected to “extract copper from what’s known as seafloor massive sulfide (SMS) deposits, according to its CEO, Ståle Monstad,” added the article. Test mining is scheduled to begin in 2028; however, several technical challenges must be resolved first. Deep-sea mining companies must transport mineral deposits 3 kilometers (approximately 1.9 miles) from the seabed to the surface. The response of the maritime ecosystem—comprising corals, sponge grounds, and other marine life—to mining is unknown. Yet, on a positive note, mining companies are required to study the environmental impact before they are permitted to begin exploration.
Norway has changed its position on this issue in recent years. As co-chair of the Ocean Panel, it pledged to sustainably manage the world’s coastline by decarbonizing the shipping industry and regulating seafood production. The Ocean Panel, established in 2018, comprises 14 governments responsible for approximately 40 percent of the world’s coastlines.
Norway’s shift in allowing deep-sea mining occurred following the election of a new government in 2021. Outraged researchers have stated that insufficient knowledge exists about the deep-sea ecosystem to justify the risk of mining for minerals such as manganese and cobalt, which are used in batteries and other electronic devices. “In marine biology, our knowledge about the existence, function, and distribution of many species is either too poor or non-existent,” warned a group of scientists from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and NTNU University Museum, both located in Trondheim, Norway.
When a relatively forward-thinking country like Norway promotes deep-sea mining, it raises concerns due to the region’s history of resistance to expanded offshore oil extraction. The damage to local economies, fisheries, and Indigenous peoples of the region has been demonstrated before, so it is worrisome that support for deep-sea mining seems to be increasing once again.
Deep Mining in U.S. Seas
According to the Nature article, “Five Priorities for a Sustainable Ocean Economy,” “Blue carbon ecosystems of mangroves, seagrass beds, and salt marshes store carbon at up to 10 times the rate of terrestrial ecosystems.” For example, the article’s authors cite the successful restoration of 3,000 hectares (approximately 1,500 acres) of seagrass beds in Virginia lagoons along the U.S. eastern seaboard, sequestering about 3,000 tons of carbon annually.
However, there are proposals to rely on seaweed to capture carbon or iron filings, which could lead to enormous damage. Yet, most people are unaware of these initiatives or the potential disasters they can cause. The concept appears benign, but the unsustainable aspects aren’t adequately addressed in the public sphere. Moreover, the pursuit of blue carbon through mangrove protection or restoration portends the danger of sea grabbing, displacement of communities, or disruption of their livelihoods.
Deep Mining by U.S. Companies
On April 28, 2025, ahead of a congressional hearing on deep-sea mining, the U.S. government issued an executive order enabling U.S. companies and subsidiaries to apply for licenses to mine the deep-sea in international waters under the Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Resources Act, originally designed to regulate mining activities until the U.S. could formally adopt the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
On the following day, the House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing to discuss the potential for deep-sea mining to expand U.S. mineral production. Dr. Douglas McCauley, a professor at UC Santa Barbara and adjunct professor at the University of California, Berkeley, claims that the executive order is a “gift to China’s economy.” Most countries have been on the same table in the International Seabed Authority, carefully negotiating binding mining regulations to ensure the equitable sharing of benefits from resources mined in international waters. The U.S. government, attempting to subvert that controlled process, instead unleashed a gold rush for fool’s gold.
“In our fever to get at these ocean minerals, the U.S. seems to have neglected to run the numbers,” McCauley said, “The cobalt and nickel that could be mined from the ocean floor would be the most expensive cobalt and nickel mined anywhere on the planet. We just committed U.S. taxpayers to something akin to the $400 military hammer scandal. Cobalt and nickel are in oversupply today and can be bought with a click on international metal markets at a fraction of the cost. The US just signed on the dotted line for a very bad economic deal.”
Duncan Currie, legal and policy advisor to the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, explains that the U.S.’ decision to pursue deep-sea mining unilaterally is a breach of international law with dire consequences for all who benefit from the ocean. Upending more than 40 years of legal precedent under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, the executive order threatens to destabilize global ocean governance. It serves as “an insult to the peoples and countries across the Pacific that this move will most impact.”
Victor Vescovo, founder and CEO of Caladan Capital, also counters U.S. companies conducting deep-sea mining, claiming that “[d]eep sea mining is an untried, technically difficult, costly, and financially risky experiment to secure only two scarce metals available from seafloor mining, nickel and cobalt, that are no longer essential for making electric vehicle batteries.”
He alludes to the fact that cobalt and nickel can be secured and stockpiled via cheaper and more reliable means. “As for rare earth metals or lithium, neither [is] available in meaningful quantities from seafloor mining. Pursuit of commercial deep-sea mining has a very great probability of becoming the Republican Party’s version of the Solyndra embarrassment.”
Ultimately, deep-sea mining is “fundamentally an unproven and high-risk endeavor, beset by significant technical, financial, and regulatory uncertainties that carry substantial risk for investors,” as Bobbi-Jo Dobush, ocean conservation policy expert and co-author of the 2024 report “Deep Sea Mining Isn’t Worth the Risk,” explains.
Assessing the Value of the Marine Ecosystem
Some argue that putting a price on the oceans’ value distorts the meaning of the blue economy as the right path forward. According to a 2023 report by the World Resources Institute, the blue economy contributes over $1.5 trillion to the global economy annually.
Although a blue economy is often conceptualized as the “sustainable” management of aquatic and marine resources and ecosystems, actions other than economic profit or power are usually seen as unreasonable or not viable.
A 2015 report published by Nature estimated that the assets found in the global marine ecosystem—including fisheries, shipping routes, and tourism—have a total value of $24 trillion, generating an annual output of $2.5 trillion. In 2022, employment in the marine economy grew by 5 percent in the United States, outpacing the overall economy (3.9 percent) in job growth.
Yet, the fundamental issue is that the concept of an “economy” has become so pervasive that people often assume that aquatic ecosystems are intended solely for capital accumulation through exploitation.
Protecting Marine Ecosystems
Local coastal communities must be mobilized. Forming alliances with fishermen, activists involved in natural rights, nonprofit organizations, and legal and political influencers will play an essential role in protecting the oceans. We must use all legal mechanisms to prevent threats to water bodies from corporations, governments, and other parties.
The world functions quickly, while political leadership in many regions tends to make strides on the path of least resistance, taking the most expedient way forward. It is a global responsibility to prevent profits from becoming the first priority for industry and political leaders, thereby maintaining the importance of natural resources and life below water.
The wars happening in the world today demonstrate that oceans and other waterways require protection. The massive destruction shows that appealing to the consciences of political leaders or the boards of global corporations is counterproductive. Grassroots activism, public awareness, and mobilization, including litigation, can help hold corporations, governments, and criminals accountable when official channels fail to protect the seas. The media can help expose ongoing marine destruction and unsustainable practices and motivate lawmakers to protect oceanic ecosystems. Destroying marine ecosystems can be viewed as an international crime. As harmful activities in the oceans threaten species, it may be considered a kind of genocide—ecocide, or the killing of the environment and the species within it.
Marine Protected Areas: More Action Needed
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) include oceanic space for long-term conservation. Other areas could be estuaries, seas, and lakes. Such protected areas also cover rivers, creeks, swamps, and continental shelves.
As governments, corporations, and illegal actors exploit the open seas in a highly unregulated ecosystem, community-led MPAs represent a potential strategy for protecting the health of the Earth’s oceans. Simply marking an area as an MPA may not be a neutral exercise.
MPAs can have various names, including marine parks, conservation zones, reserves, sanctuaries, and no-take zones. As of 2023, there were more than 5,000 MPAs worldwide, covering more than 8 percent of the ocean. MPAs have been established in various maritime sites, including the open ocean.
Most MPAs aim to protect marine habitats and the sea life they support. One of the best-known examples is the Galápagos Marine Reserve, located approximately 1,000 kilometers (600 miles) off the west coast of South America. The reserve encompasses a diverse range of marine habitats, including coral reefs and mangrove swamps, where trees grow directly in seawater. The waters around the Galápagos are home to about 3,000 plant and animal species. Some MPAs, on the other hand, focus on specific historical sites, such as shipwrecks.
According to the Marine Conservation Institute, approximately 8 percent of the world’s waters are protected by some form of marine protection, with the island nation of Palau leading the way. Only nine countries have protected 10 to 30 percent of their waters, though only 2 percent have protected as much as 30 percent.
The UN’s World Database on Protected Areas documents MPAs submitted by nations. It reports that more than 15,000 MPAs safeguard an expanse of ocean covering more than 27 million square kilometers, equivalent to nearly 10.6 million square miles. In the U.S., marine protected areas cover 25 percent of the country’s waters.
Most African MPAs are in Eastern and Southern Africa, with a few in West and North Africa. Experts recommend that MPAs should be driven by people rather than finances. If the laws regulating MPAs are established solely by the government, further details must be made clear to those involved in upholding these laws.
One example of these rules is the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary in Tanzania, established in 1992. This project continues to engage local communities in the management and monitoring of marine resources. It has led to a significant recovery of degraded coral reefs and an increase in fish stocks. This success is attributed to the involvement of local communities in the management of MPAs and the assurance of equitable stakeholder involvement in the benefits derived from such conservation.
Another success story is the Bazaruto Archipelago National Park in Mozambique, established in 1971. It spans an area of approximately 1,430 square kilometers (550 square miles) and encompasses a diverse range of marine habitats, including coral reefs, seagrass beds, and mangroves. This MPA has provided economic benefits to the local communities by supporting sustainable artisanal fishing and protecting the region’s biodiversity, including endangered species such as dugongs, turtles, and sharks.
A study published in October 2024 by Dynamic Planet and National Geographic Pristine Seas calculated the number of MPAs needed to meet the global goal of protecting 30 percent of the ocean by 2030 (known as 30x30). World leaders agreed upon this target during the UN Convention on Biological Diversity Conference (COP15) in December 2022, but it remains contentious because it has the potential to grab territories and disrupt access by placing them out of reach of traditional custodians.
The study highlights a significant gap between these leaders’ ambitions and measures to safeguard the oceans. As of 2024, only 8 percent of the global ocean is under some form of protection, and less than 3 percent is fully or highly protected. To reach the 30 percent target by 2030, the world must create about 190,000 small MPAs in coastal areas and around 300 larger MPAs in remote offshore regions. This emphasizes the urgency for immediate, concrete action to protect our oceans. The challenge remains whether the protection will protect the well-being of the traditional stewards of such areas or even ensure their acceptance of the idea.
In October 2024, the regional assembly of Portugal’s Azores Islands, a group of nine islands in the Atlantic Ocean, approved a plan to create 287,000 square kilometers of marine protected areas, known as the Azores Marine Protected Area Network (RAMPA), forming the largest MPA network in the North Atlantic. As a result, 15 percent of Azorean waters are now fully protected, while another 15 percent is highly protected. In these areas, fishing and other extractive activities will be restricted or completely banned to preserve a wide range of marine life, including whales, dolphins, sharks, manta rays, fish, deep-sea corals, and rare hydrothermal vent ecosystems.
Unless MPAs are instituted with the full consent and support of dependent coastal communities, they may be a means of shutting groups of people off from nature. Governments can protect forests without the permission of relevant parties, a practice often referred to as “fortress conservation.” This concept refers to the ability of some groups to map out and prevent others from going near designated parts of the ocean. In such instances, the blue economy could be considered a cause of many conflicts. This situation could arise if communities or commercial entities claim ownership or control of resources found in specific areas. Conflicts could also occur when MPAs are cordoned off with a military shield as “conquered” territories.
Colonizing Nature
The concept of colonialism extends beyond the political control and exploitation of one nation by another; it also encompasses our relationship with nature. The “colonization of nature” entails exploiting and transforming natural resources for economic gain without considering their socio-ecological impacts. This approach has contributed to many problems, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and armed conflict over resources.
Launched in 2018 and based in Nigeria, the School of Ecology (SoE) explores environmental and climate justice, agriculture, resource democracy, and overall socio-ecological transformation. The organization operates under the aegis of the Health of Mother Earth Foundation, an ecological think tank where I serve as the director. One SoE gathering was based on the MPA concept and the challenges associated with the concept of the blue economy. A people-driven MPA would place the fate of its aquatic ecosystems in the hands of its people. Such a level of stewardship would ensure the protection and restoration of ecosystems where damage may occur.
The organization promotes the security and resilience of ecosystems as wielders of power and capital. Although many people see the promotion of the blue economy as a means of securing life underwater, as highlighted in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, this is often not the case.
Environmentalism From Below
The Gulf of Guinea has seen high pollution levels and environmental crimes. A high level of sea-based pollution, including plastic waste, in the Gulf of Guinea is largely attributed to the Niger Delta, and it is time for regional governments, such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), to declare an environmental emergency.
A commitment to such a declaration will go a long way in ensuring that the population of West Africa can rely on a safe environment to carry out their economic, sociocultural, recreational, and spiritual activities. Environmentalism from below necessitates a reassessment of the notion that environmental concerns are exclusive to those whose basic needs are met and who can afford to consider luxuries. Environmentalism from below requires those who depend on healthy ecosystems for their basic needs to stand up against attempts to exploit their territories by powerful and connected individuals, governments, and corporations. Humanity is outpacing nature and plundering ocean resources to the degree that we are preventing those resources from recovering naturally.
Establishing community-managed MPAs is a powerful strategy for safeguarding the health of our oceans and halting further decline, particularly when incorporated into a comprehensive management framework. These MPAs offer a compelling solution that will help ensure the aquatic commons remain free from corporate and industrial exploitation and monopolies.
Optimally, if local, community-based managed MPAs were established in coastal waters worldwide, they would restore degraded areas, rebuild biodiversity, revive cultural practices, restore dignity, and reinvigorate local economies. While capitalism often sets rules globally, there are definite ways in which humanity can work together to liberate nature from the bottom up. The world’s oceans—and all species they support, including ours—depend on it.
