2. The role of institutions
Eminent international institutions such as the World Bank play
a key role in the perpetuation of Ocean Grabbing through their views on the
management of natural resources and their economical bias. The World Bank
launched the Global Partnership for Oceans (GPO) with the advertised goal of
bringing oceans back to health (Global Partnership for Oceans 2014), with a
budget of US$ 1.5 billion over the course of 5 years, making it the biggest
programme dealing with fisheries to this day. The GPO has been presented as a
programme with the pretence of being the new alliance that will govern issues
surrounding fisheries and marine resource management. Additionally, it was
built by a limited number of stakeholders without substantial consultation and
inclusion of fisherfolks (Franco, et al. 2014).
The African equivalent of the GPO is the Africa Program
for Fisheries, which naturally was the product of the collaboration
between the World Bank, African leaders through the African Union and the New
Economic Partnership for Africa's Development (Nepad). The Africa Program for
Fisheries is the extension of the GPO on the African continent, despite the
announced goal of sustainability, as once again, these institutions failed to
involve the primarily concerned and pushed for a privatization of fishery
sectors across Africa (FAO et NEPAD 2014).
***
Ocean grabbing by creating a discourse of protection is
indulging on the contrary and overexploiting marine resources. Those who
perpetuate ocean grabbing play with the laws in place, bypass them and violate
them, thereby depriving coastal communities of their livelihood. The role of
major institutions such as the World Bank is disappointing and not very
relevant in the fight against ocean grabbing partly because it does not take
into account the voice of fishing communities who are nevertheless the first
concerned.
51
II. Blue growth: the fine line between business and ocean
grabbing
The FAO has taken a leading role in the management and
governance of blue growth. It has turned it into a real financial resource with
networks, groups of experts and specialised regional and sub-regional bodies.
Although it promotes the protection of this new economic opportunity, the
practices surrounding blue growth seem to bear witness to this differently.
1. The preponderant role of the FAO
Founded on the principles of the Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries and the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing
Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty
Eradication, Blue Growth is an economic approach developed by the FAO. It
aims at sustainably developing what is called the `blue economy', referring to
natural resources as well as creating jobs in fisheries (World Bank 2017). The
concept of `blue economy' emerged in 2012 during the Rio+20 Conference and
describes an ocean-based economy which stresses on the necessity of `healthy'
oceans for more productivity and profit (FAO 2014). The blue economy offers
employment to around 5 million people worldwide and creates close to US$ 580
billion a year with a yet to be exploited potential (European Commission
Maritime Affairs 2018). Blue Growth intends to better exploit the potential of
marine resources with a strategy built on three focuses: put an end to
destructive fishing practices like overfishing and Illegal Unreported and
Unregulated (IUU) fishing by promoting sustainability; implement cooperative
measures with developing countries; encourage the development of similar
policies in favour of sustainable management, food security and poverty
reduction. The FAO, aims at establishing institutions and mechanisms that set
up common standards for more compelling actions at both international and
national level. The organisation looks to help countries identify the issues
standing in the way of improving food security and poverty reduction and then
support them in implementing adequate policies (FAO, Policy Support and
Governance s.d.).
2. 52
Blue growth in West Africa
Even if the breadth of the `blue economy' varies, coastal
countries agree that the sustainable management of marine resources can indeed
positively impact coastal communities as well as stimulate a high potential
sector of the economy which can lead to a trickle up effect impacting other
sectors of the economy and therefore creating a virtuous circle (Tokyo
International Conference of African Development 2016). The African Union
pursued the development of the Blue Economy through 4 documents that form the
current framework:
· the African Maritime Transport Charter
in 2009
· the Africa Integrated Maritime Strategy
«2050 AIM Strategy» in 2012
· the Policy Framework and Reform Strategy
for Fisheries and Aquaculture in
Africa in association with the Nepad
in 2014
· the African Union 2063 Agenda
«The Africa We Want» in 2015
In line with the FAO's vision, these agreements seek to
establish cooperation at regional and international level, thus facilitating
trade (Tralac s.d.).
In the event that current harmful fishing practices pursue,
fish stocks in West Africa are expected to decline by half before 2050. In
2017, the World Bank addressed the issue in The Sunken Billions Revisited
a report that supports the idea that fishing in smaller quantities in the
short term will led to an increased production in the long term. The World Bank
even goas as far as estimating a US$ 80 billion benefit each year following the
reduction of fishing. In Sierra Leone fisherfolks mentioned that the rise of
illegal fishing correlated with the depletion of fish stocks and the growing
fragility of their socio-economic situation (World Bank 2017).
3. Blue growth: good intentions or hidden
agenda?
«Talk of the ocean as a new economic frontier, of a new
phase of industrialization of the seas, will become widespread in 2016»
(Goddard s.d.)
2015 marked a renewed interest in oceans as their economic
potential and financial benefits were now asserted. Multiple forums, meetings
and conferences were subsequently organized around the concept of `blue
economy' and how countries can obtain blue growth. Instead of
53
realizing how incompatible blue growth and natural resources
conservation are, partisans of this new approach prefer to see in it only
solutions and win-win situations. Similar to land grabbing, ocean grabbing is
permitted and justified for its supposed positive contribution whilst
contributing to everything that goes against what it supposedly defends: the
conservation and sustainable management of marine resources (Borras, et al.
2018).
During the Rio+20 summit, when blue growth gained important
momentum, 4 different discourses were identified. First, that oceans are
natural capital; second, that oceans and their natural resources were
profitable; third, that they are non-dissociable from small island developing
States; and last that they are the mean of subsistence of small-scale
fisherfolks. Blue growth then proceeds to provide answers to all of the issues
that come with each discourse. The marginalisation and inequalities that small
island and small-scale fisherfolks face is a shared focal point that blue
growth proposes to solve by implementing a human right-based approach with the
support from NGO's and fisher organisations (Barbesgaard 2017).
The Rio+20 represents a real milestone that launched a series
of initiates facilitating the implementation of blue growth. The most important
and the first of its kind was FAO's own Blue Growth Initiative (BGI)
introduced in 2013. The FAO's definition of blue growth reads as follows:
«The sustainable growth and development emanating from
economic activities in the oceans,
wetlands and coastal zones, that minimize
environmental degradation, biodiversity loss and
unsustainable use of living
aquatic resources, and maximize economic and social benefits»
(FAO
2015)
This definition is particularly interesting in the way it
approaches each of the 4 discourses by combining them. The aim is to be able to
respond to the associated problems and to present BGI as a comprehensive and
effective approach that can both identify problems related to the ocean's
natural resources and provide answers. BGI also insist on the importance of
`meaningful partnerships' that prevent groups from taking over. This commitment
hints that civil society and small stakeholders are taken into account and
treated like primordial actors. Nonetheless, some are opposed to this approach
and have expressed their discontentment. World Forum of Fisher Peoples and the
World Forum of Fish Harvesters and Fish Workers, have openly
54
criticised blue growth in general for the lack of actual
involvement of small stakeholders (Barbesgaard 2017).
***
While blue growth was rightfully promoted as the new way to
make profit off of natural resources, the sustainable management it requires is
completely disregarded. The role of the FAO is therefore one of an enabler of
overexploitation. In complete paradox with what it advances, the practices that
surround blue growth are in every way similar to ocean grabbing, far removed
from the discourse on sustainability that it continues to deliver.
| 
