500 word essay about benefits and cost of coastal sustainable development

Essay On Sustainable Development

500 words essay on  sustainable development.

Sustainable development is basically an action plan which helps us to achieve sustainability in any activity which makes use of the resource. Moreover, it also demands immediate and intergenerational replication. Through essay on sustainable development, we will help you understand the concept and its advantages.

Through sustainable development, we formulate organising principles which help to sustain the limited resources essential to provide for the needs of our future generations. As a result, they will be able to lead a content life on the planet .

What is Sustainable Development?

The World Commission on Environment and Development popularized this concept in 1987. Their report defines the idea as a “development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”

In other words, they aimed to prevent the stripping the natural world of resources which the future generations will require. As we all know that usually, one particular need drives development. Consequently, the wider future impacts are not considered.

As a result, a lot of damage happens due to this type of approach. Thus, the longer we continue to pursue unsustainable development, the more severe will the consequences be. One of the most common is climate change which is being debated widely worldwide.

In fact, climate change is already wreaking havoc on our surroundings. So, the need of the hour is sustainable development. We must ask ourselves, must we leave a scorched planet with an ailing environment for our future generations?

In order to undo the mess created by us, we must follow sustainable development. This will help us promote a more social, environmental and economical thinking. Most importantly, it is not that difficult to attain this.

We must see that world as a system which connects space, and time. Basically, it helps you understand that water pollution in South Africa will ultimately impact water quality in India. Similarly, it is the case for other things as well.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Measures to Practice Sustainable Development

There are many measures to take up for practising sustainable development. To begin with, it is important to ensure clean and hygienic living and working conditions for the people.

Next, sponsoring research on environmental issues which pertains to regions. Further, ensuring safety against known and proven industrial hazards. It is also important to find economical methods to salvage dangerous industrial wastes.

Most importantly, we must encourage afforestation . Including environmental education as part of the school and college curriculum will also help. Similarly, it is essential to socialize and humanize all environmental issues.

Further, we must encourage uses of non-conventional sources of energy, especially solar energy. Looking for substitutes for proven dangerous materials on the basis of local resources and needs will help. Likewise, we must produce environment-friendly products.

It is also essential to popularize the use of organic fertilizers and other biotechniques. Finally, the key is environmental management which must be monitored and ensure accountability.

Conclusion of Essay on Sustainable Development

To sum it up, sustainable development continuously seeks to achieve social and economic progress in ways which will not exhaust the Earth’s finite natural resources. Thus, we must all develop ways to meet these needs so that our future generations can inherit a healthier and greener planet.

FAQ on Essay on Sustainable Development

Question 1: State two measures we can take for sustainable development.

Answer 1: The first measure we can take is by finding economical methods for salvaging hazardous industrial wastes. Next, we must encourage afforestation.

Question 2: What is the aim of sustainable development?

Answer 2 : The aim of sustainable development is to maximise human well-being or quality of life without having to risk the life support system.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Methods article, governing the land-sea interface to achieve sustainable coastal development.

• 1 Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada
• 2 Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
• 3 National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States
• 4 Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia
• 5 School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, Australia
• 6 Centre for Fisheries Ecosystems Research, Fisheries & Marine Institute, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada
• 7 Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada

Coastal regions are essential to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) given their importance for human habitation, resource provisioning, employment, and cultural practice. They are also regions where different ecological, disciplinary, and jurisdictional boundaries both overlap and are obscured. We thus propose the land-sea interface as areas where governance systems are most in need of frameworks for systems analysis to meet the SDGs—which are inherently interconnected— and integrate complex interdependencies between human livelihoods, energy, transport, food production, and nutrient flows (among others). We propose a strategic land-sea governance framework built on the sustainable transitions literature to plan for governance to achieve sustainable development across the land-sea interface. To illustrate our proposal, we compare governance planning processes across four case-based scenarios: an industrialized coastal country, a least developed coastal country, a developing coastal country with local dependencies on ocean resources, and a small island developing state primarily dependent on tourism. Through the lens of aligning governance actors and actions vertically (subnational to national), horizontally (across sectors), and programmatically (from goals to implementation), we propose scales at which governance systems may be misaligned, such as where different agencies that affect marine systems have conflicting visions and goals, leading to stalled progress or counterproductive actions. Where possible, we also highlight strategies to align across scales of high level strategic policy, tactical scale institutional mandates and cooperation, and on the ground activities and operations, such as aligning actors based on an analysis of interdependencies of goals.

Introduction

Coastal systems are home to a large proportion of the world’s population, directly support hundreds of millions of livelihoods, and are the direct link between marine resources and seafood supply chains, especially in coastal countries and island states ( Singh et al., 2018 ; Selig et al., 2019 ; Lam et al., 2020 ). The land-sea interface that defines coastal systems faces a broad array of impacts from climate change (including stressors from mean temperature rise, ocean acidification, and extreme weather events) across all dimensions of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ( Singh et al., 2019 ). Importantly from a systems perspective, coasts are also directly impacted by land-based pressures and human activities including increased erosion and sedimentation, nutrient loading, and many forms of pollution stemming from agriculture, urbanization and energy production ( Lotze et al., 2006 ; Halpern et al., 2015 ; Singh et al., 2017 , 2020 ; Nordhaus et al., 2018 ). Many of these pressures and industrial sectors do not account for, and may not be aware of, (sometimes literal) downstream impacts on the oceans ( Halpern et al., 2008 ). Governance and decision-making to promote sustainable development for the land-sea interface must therefore be integrative across diverse dimensions of social-ecological systems.

Because coastal systems are so important to people and are so social-ecologically complex, sustainable coastal development is essential for achieving the SDGs. Here, we define coastal sustainable development as human activities and planning processes that contribute across the SDGs and minimized trade-offs between SDG objectives. We are explicitly concerned with development outcomes across multiple SDG outcomes as sustainable development is a multi-criteria problem, and we focus on the SDGs since they are the most widely accepted definition of sustainable development. While a comprehensive and wide-spanning systems approach is clearly necessary to address coastal sustainability issues, this can be a very complex task. Achieving this integrated policy requires a transition away from current institutional regimes, and navigating this transition is often not intuitive ( Blythe et al., 2018 ; Bennett et al., 2019 ). Frameworks to help structure governance systems to achieve sustainability initiatives have been developed in political science as a planning and research framework for transitioning from current governance systems to integrated policy systems in order to achieve sustainable development objectives ( Kemp et al., 2007 ; Loorbach, 2007 ; Rotmans and Loorbach, 2009 ; Loorbach, 2010 ; Broman and Robèrt, 2017 ). However, frameworks for structuring governance systems around sustainability goals have not had wide uptake in SDG planning or for environmental governance planning in general (but see, Singh, 2020 ; Singh et al., 2021 ).

Recent research focused on interlinkages between UN SDG targets—the most comprehensive contemporary set of multi-disciplinary development objectives—has highlighted the fact that there are both direct and more complex tradeoffs and co-benefits across different policy objectives ( Nilsson et al., 2018 ; Singh et al., 2018 , 2021 ). In some cases, making progress on coastal sustainability can directly contribute to SDG areas such as food security (SDG 2), longer term economic and employment opportunities (SDG 8), and improved ecosystem states (SDGs 14 and 15) ( Blanchard et al., 2017 ; Lotze et al., 2019 ). In other cases, however, progress can be highly dependent on actions taken on other SDGs, such as how the revenues generated from sustainable coastal development can promote poverty reduction and habitat restoration depending on how these revenues are distributed and invested ( Singh et al., 2018 ).

Beyond determining which SDG topic areas are needed to promote a given policy goal (and which SDG topic areas can be detrimental for a given goal), governing the land-sea interface will require an understanding of what management activities to conduct and how to best achieve these activities. Aligning management activities in the context of interlinked SDG topic areas requires coordination in a governance system ( Singh, 2020 ; Singh et al., 2021 ). Coastal systems are often governed by multiple institutions siloed across the multiple sectors of coastal systems (e.g., fisheries, forestry, agriculture) ( Halpern et al., 2008 ). Siloed management can lead to counterproductive outcomes when institutional missions and activities do not align, or when side-effects from one sector affect another ( Cottrell et al., 2018 , 2019 ). Though a substantial literature has been developed addressing how siloed management can lead to counterproductive and uncoordinated results, what is missing is a systematic framework to determine how to align institutions to achieve coordinated action toward desired goals ( Singh, 2020 ). Here, we offer a strategic land-sea interface governance framework based on the sustainable transitions and policy coherence literatures, and provide case studies viewed through the lens of this framework.

Aligning Governance in Land-Sea Interface for SDGs

Coastal settings have the potential for complex dynamics across all social, economic, and biophysical dimensions of the SDGs, as they include both marine and terrestrial ecosystems with dense human population, and a diverse set of resource users. Determining how SDGs interlink in these regions is therefore very important given the numerous potential interactions available to explore.

The SDGs are listed as 17 discrete goals, each with a set of more specific targets. Interlinkages between the goals are recognized and the SDGs were written to be “indivisible,” even if these linkages are not explicitly included in the SDG Agenda ( UN, 2015 ). Identifying and exploring interlinkages is thus vital for understanding how pursuing specific SDGs can affect others and such assessments have been conducted for the oceans ( Singh et al., 2018 ), energy systems ( Nerini et al., 2018 ), eliminating hunger ( Rasul, 2016 ; ICSU, 2017 ), increasing human health ( Bekker et al., 2018 ), and more general SDG areas of interest ( Pradhan et al., 2017 ). Importantly, however, general knowledge on linkages is not enough to guide a transition to sustainability without deeper information on the scale of change needed to achieve particular or multiple targets ( Singh et al., 2021 ).

Besides the diversity of sustainable development dimensions, governing coastal regions has to contend with existing governance systems that are built on quasi-non-overlapping jurisdictions. Governments and industries are highly siloed, where different sectors of the economy are regulated and acted on by distinct organizations ( Halpern et al., 2008 ). For example, most governments have distinct regulatory organizations that deal with oceans versus terrestrial lands, and between fisheries and farming, even though these different sectors are highly related ( Cottrell et al., 2018 ). Beyond the fragmentation of governance along lines of economic sectors, there are often jurisdictional distinctions between national government and subnational government agencies. For example, to address issues of marine pollution in British Columbia, Canada, a successful initiative would likely need to work between Fisheries and Oceans Canada (a federal department regulating fisheries) Transport Canada (a federal department regulating shipping), Agriculture Canada (a federal department regulating agricultural production), the Ministry of Agriculture (a provincial ministry regulating agricultural lands and production), local government planning organizations, and others.

We propose a framework built on the theoretical perspectives of policy coherence and sustainable transitions. In so doing, we have created a framework that operates across three dimensions; horizontal policy coherence; vertical policy coherence, and programmatic alignment. Policy coherence is theoretically an attribute of policy that systematically reduces conflict and promotes synergies between and within different policy actors and institutions to achieve the outcomes associated with agreed policy objectives ( Nilsson et al., 2012 ). Specifically, working across agencies and organizations that operate at the same scale (e.g., national) is often called “horizontal policy coherence” whereas working across agencies that operate across different scales (e.g., between national and sub-national) is often referred to as “vertical policy coherence” ( Nilsson et al., 2012 ).

Horizontal and vertical policy coherence across agencies needs to consider the programmatic alignment from vision to implementation. To address programmatic alignment, we relied on theoretical framing of sustainability transitions, specifically transition management theory. The literature on societal change and governance systems to promote sustainability identify three governance levels to consider: (1) the strategic level of vision development and goal setting; (2) the tactical level of institutional interactions; (3) the operational level of implementation ( Loorbach, 2010 ; Singh, 2020 ). Where organizations have disjoint governance actions across these three levels, any sustainability initiatives my fail. For example, if an environmental NGO and a community-based organization share broad goals of ocean conservation, but the local group is not included in decisions and responsibilities of setting up an MPA, the MPA may suffer from a lack of local-buy-in and enforcement, especially if the local group supports alternative conservation actions ( Christie, 2004 ). This governance approach – alignment across sectoral (horizontal), policy resolution (vertical) and policy actors (from goals to institutions and operations) – can be a useful approach to integrate systems analysis into planning ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1. A framework for aligning governance actors and activities for sustainability in land-sea interfaces. This framework considers programmatic alignment (connections between strategic, tactical, and operational components), vertical alignment (connections between tactical institutions acting at different scales), and horizontal alignment (connections within components at the same governance level). Unaligned activities are those which are not connected across all three types of alignment (programmatic, vertical, horizontal).

The relationship among these three scales can help determine appropriate policy strategies to achieve sustainable development ( Kemp et al., 2007 ; Loorbach, 2010 ), as understanding how various dimensions of sustainable development are related to each other (strategic actions), can inform how to structure governance institutions, and the way that governance institutions are structured (tactical actions) can realize which relationships among sustainable development dimensions are achievable and which ones are not. The types of institutions and their relationships to each other also regulates the policy interventions that can be undertaken (operational actions), while identifying effective interventions can determine new potential collaborations between institutions. This model is structured to align governance coherence both from top-down and bottom-up perspectives. Top down processes would help structure and steer activities that occur below, while bottom up processes would instruct higher levels about the effectiveness of projects and policies. This kind of reflexive feedback allows for self-correction in governance structure and treats the process of achieving sustainable development as a complex adaptive system ( Kemp et al., 2007 ; Loorbach, 2010 ). Below, we provide four case studies of land-sea governance problems that explore these situations. We detail case studies across a range of countries – including small island states, a developing coastal country, and a developed coastal country – to document the diversity of settings that can benefit from the approach outlined here.

Case Studies

Case study 1: planning institutional network to support sustainability goals in aruba – using the strategic scale to inform the tactical scale, problem context.

Aruba is a small island state in the southern Caribbean, with 90% of annual GDP is derived from coastal tourism ( WTTC, 2019 ). A large proportion of Aruba’s island surface has been transformed for tourism infrastructure ( Barendsen et al., 2008 ). Aruba’s coastal development to date has led to marine pollution problems as well as coastal habitat loss, such as through mangrove removal ( Oduber et al., 2015 ). Though marine tourism has such high economic value, it is not necessarily sustainable and it does not focus on a healthy marine ecosystem but rather having warm, clean, sand beaches ( Singh et al., 2021 ). Aruban institutions responsible for managing the land-sea interface within Aruba operate in a siloed fashion, and initiatives from some may counteract the goals of others ( Singh et al., 2021 ). For example, much of the pollution problems come from coastal and community development, which are regulated by the Aruba Tourism Agency and Department of Economic Affairs and Infrastructure, who promote coastal tourism and development. Yet, tourism is also dependent on clean waters, so regulating marine pollution is beneficial, and requires alignment among agencies that can help regulate pollution.

The Sustainable Development Objective

Aruba has a SDG commission which indicated that SDG 14 (Life Below Water – the Ocean Goal) is a priority for the island state, and hosted a workshop to determine policy priorities to achieve sustainable oceans ( Singh et al., 2021 ). Through an SDG interrelationship exercise, SDG 14.1, the target to reduce marine pollution, was determined to be the SDG target that was a pre-requisite across the largest number of SDG ocean targets. Consequently, it was found to be the most important pre-requisite for achieving the largest number of other SDG targets across ocean targets. Determining how to achieve the target of reducing marine pollution, and what actors are needed to work together to achieve it, can be seen as a priority for the small island nation.

Planning Vertical and Horizontal Coherence at the Tactical Scale to Meet Priorities at the Strategic Scale

With a priority target determined, workshop participants conducted another SDG interrelationship exercise, this time to look at what SDG targets promote or detract from achieving SDG 14.1: reducing marine pollution. This exercise was done to explore the multiple policy options and determine the policy requirements needed to effectively manage marine pollution. In effect, this exercise explored the Strategic scale of the transition management framework. Results for this exercise are presented in Table 1 .

Table 1. The SDG targets determined to contribute to (or detract from) the achievement of SDG 14.1 in Aruba.

With the interlinkages supporting SDG 14.1 determined across the land-sea interface, workshop participants could make informed recommendations of how Aruban institutions should be structured in order to take advantage of the identified co-beneficial relationships (exploring the tactical scale of transition management framework). First, participants created a scenario where only direct institutional regulation for SDG achievement is considered (SDG interactions do not shape the structure of institutions). Second, participants created a scenario whereby the collaborative structure of institutions was guided by SDG interlinkages that support the achievement of SDG 14.1 (as well as the SDG target that posed a potential trade-off with SDG 14.1). In the first scenario, participants determined six Aruban agencies that collaborate to work toward SDG 14.1, including the Directorate of Nature and Environment (DNE), and all six equally collaborate (determined by the number of links with other institutions, Figure 2 ). However, when SDG interlinkages were considered to support SDG 14.1, a more complex institutional network was produced ( Figure 2 ). In this scenario, the three most important Aruban agencies (in order, according to centrality measures) were the Social and Economic Council (SEC), the Department of Economic Affairs (ECO), and the Aruba Tourism Authority (ATA, Figure 2 ), while the DNE was connected to fewer institutions and so might be less influential in coordinating actions across institutions.

Figure 2. Network diagrams of the institutional structures needed to manage SDG 14.1, considering only direct regulation management (A) , and considering all SDG targets that contribute to SDG 14.1, with the institutions that manage these supportive SDG targets (B) for Aruba. When only direct regulation is considered, few institutions have an equal role in achieving the SDG target, including the Directorate of Nature and the Environment (DNE). When interlinkages are recognized between SDG targets then more institutions are involved in achieving the SDG target and some have a more central role in coordinating policy and action. In the case of achieving SDG 14.1 for Aruba, this includes the Social and Economic Council (SEC), the Department of Economic Affairs (ECO), and the Aruban Tourism Authority (ATA). Institutions are clustered based on their association among other institutions, and links vary in length based on the distance between institutions they are connecting.

Case Study 2: Land-Sea Co-benefits of Climate-Smart Agriculture – Using the Operational Scale to Inform the Tactical Scale

Dominica is a small Caribbean island state that has historically relied heavily on agricultural production for its economy – agriculture has represented 12–16% of total GDP since 2010 ( Worldbank, 2021 ) – and over 60% of the population live in the coastal zone. As the northernmost of the eastern windward islands, Dominica’s location exposes it to a range of natural hazards, particularly hurricanes and tropical storms ( Barclay et al., 2019 ). Extreme weather has had a huge influence on natural resource use on the island and has shown capacity for shifting livelihood activities from farming to fishing when agricultural shocks occur ( Ramdeen et al., 2014 ; Cottrell et al., 2019 ). Banana production has been the dominant crop in Dominica throughout the 1900s ( Barclay et al., 2019 ) but the vulnerability of monocrop dependence has been highlighted by two notable events – Hurricane David in 1979 which led to sudden and widespread crop damage, and the dissolution of historical trade deals with the EU in the 1990s which resulted in a steady decline of banana production ( Cottrell et al., 2019 ). On both occasions, rapid increases in fisheries landings occurred following agricultural collapse, and after Hurricane David these fishing surges were followed by sudden declines in catch thought to be linked to overfishing in nearshore waters ( Cottrell et al., 2019 ). Dominica has committed to protecting “Life below water” (SDG14) through reducing overcapacity, bycatch and discards, and unregulated fishing (SDG 14.2 and 14.4) and increasing marine protected areas (SDG14.5) through its partnership in the Western Central Atlantic Fisheries Commission. However, continuing to meet these targets will require strengthening the resilience of the agricultural systems to guard against such unpredictable shifts between sectors under a future of projected increasing volatility.

Dominica is already in an extraordinary position for transition in its agricultural sector. Following the damage of Hurricane Maria in 2017, the Dominican government published the Emergency Agricultural Livelihoods and Climate Resilience Project [ Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica (GCD), 2018 ]. The government has committed US $16.5 million toward the DEALCRP to restore a productive base for crop- and livestock-based livelihoods and business. However, executing the DEALCRP successfully requires coherence between government and non-governmental actors, which our framework can help with.

Planning Vertical and Horizontal Coherence at the Tactical Scale to Carry Out a Project at the Operational Scale

Referencing key environmental and social challenges for agricultural resilience documented in the DEALCRP as well as peer reviewed literature, we outline how agroforestry (the co-cultivation of crops with shade trees) can work toward mitigating these challenges (planning on the operational scale), and link these elements of an agroforestry program to the governance institutions that are needed to work together to effectively carry out this program (the tactical scale). We also outline anticipated SDG co-benefits of successfully implementing agroforestry in Dominica ( Figure 3 ).

Figure 3. The role of agroforestry for addressing land-sea switches and sustainability in Dominica. With agricultural vulnerability to climate shocks identified as the primary driver of challenges to sustainable development goals, we show how agroforestry at the operational scale can directly and indirectly address sustainability challenges and inform tactical institutional collaboration.

Food resource productivity and livelihood vulnerabilities on Dominica are driven by numerous factors. High dependence on a single crop is reinforced by the rapid recovery time bananas can provide after disaster combined with economic incentives for regrowth from the windwards island insurance scheme and the productivity of the crop itself ( Mohan, 2017b ). Banana crops are known to be more susceptible than many other crops to wind damage, with root dislocation and moisture stress possible even in weak tropical storms ( Mohan, 2017a ). Dominica’s mountainous terrain is also challenge for cultivation in places, with soil erosion during times of heavy rainfall leading to landslides and flooding, and there is recognition of the need for greater soil stabilization than current management practices provide [ Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica (GCD), 2018 ]. These factors are all in addition to Dominica’s vulnerability from its physical position in the Caribbean.

Yet integrating bananas into an agroforestry setting could reduce many of these vulnerabilities while delivering multiple co-benefits. Banana agroforestry with fig, mango and Albizia species (for timber) have shown great promise for increasing soil fertility in Uganda, for example ( Ssebulime et al., 2019 ). Shade trees provide sources of income from timber (even after storm damage) and fruits throughout the year, and leaf litter for compost reducing the need for agrochemicals. Similar benefits from livelihood diversification have been demonstrated when growing bananas alongside coffee too ( Reay, 2019 ). If combined with silvopastoral practices (livestock integrated into fruit and timber trees), livestock provide another income stream and a source of manure ( Waldron et al., 2017 ). Agroforestry can increase above and below ground biomass, reducing surface run-off and binding soils together while buffering the standing crops’ exposure to high winds during a storm ( Waldron et al., 2017 ). Forested areas are already recognized for their importance in erosion control in Dominica [ Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica (GCD), 2018 ], so spreading these benefits into food production systems suffering from soil erosion problems is a logical step. In making agricultural systems more resilient in the face of meteorological shocks, Dominica can prevent unpredictable shifts in resource use seen in recent years that threaten marine sustainability targets (SDG 14). But in doing so also generates co-benefits among multiple goals for poverty and hunger reduction (SDG1 and 2), economic development (SDG 8), responsible production and consumption (SDG12) and reduces terrestrial habitat fragmentation with numerous benefits for wildlife (SDG 15) ( Figure 3 ).

Successfully realizing these benefits will require effective collaboration among divisions of the Ministry of Blue & Green Economy, Agriculture and National Food Security (MEAF), and the Ministry of Environment Climate Resilience, Disaster Management and Urban Renewal (MECDU), as well as the many private small-scale landowners who engage in agriculture. For the Division of Agriculture in the MEAF, a shift toward agroforestry aligns strongly with its Coffee and Cocoa program which is currently rehabilitating existing plantations, and expanding production over the island to meet objectives of increasing exports, income, and employment ( Division of Agriculture, 2021 ). Close communication with the Forestry, Parks, and Wildlife Division within MEDU would be needed at a number of levels. Firstly, to ensure that suitable companion crops could be grown alongside bananas and that timber resources were able to be optimally utilized within State and private lands. Indeed, current operations to thin State forests provide an opportunity to enrich existing plantations with diverse and profitable fruit crops ( Division of Forestry, Parks, and Wildlife, 2021 ). Second, to ensure agroforestry expansion was attractive, profitable, and feasible for private landowners in parallel with existing responsibilities of the FWPD’s silviculture unit. Third, FWPD’s aims to minimize soil erosion and maximize the value of forestry units for wildlife refugia could be tracked alongside monitoring agroforestry productivity.

Further, such integrative farming practices can be a feature of agro- and ecotourism programs rather than seen as a source of conflict, enhancing their economic potential ( Hakim et al., 2019 ) and highlighting the need for collaboration with the Ministry of Tourism, International Transport, and Maritime activities 1 . Finally, effective temporal tracking of livelihood mobility between agriculture and fisheries during new fisher registration and agricultural surveys will be necessary for empirical evidence of changes in agricultural resilience through time, and will require efficient data sharing among agriculture and fisheries divisions of the MEAF. By addressing the major challenges that face agriculture and identifying a solution that strengthens and aligns current programs to meet environmental and social objectives – promoting widespread agroforestry as a key operational activity can inform necessary tactical design for effective land-sea governance in Dominica.

Case Study 3: Developing a Common Strategy for the Great Barrier Reef From Diverse Management Agencies – Using the Tactical Scale to Inform the Strategic Scale

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is managed by agencies at federal and state levels, whose strategic goals for the reef do not always align. Some agencies have a clear preservationist conservation mandate while others are interested in promoting development opportunities ( Table 2 ). While management agencies can potentially find an acceptable balance between these two goals, in practice, conflicting management and trade-offs occur. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), is the federal agency primarily responsible for managing, zoning, and permitting activities related to the reef since 1975 ( Day and Dobbs, 2013 ). The Great Barrier Reef was designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Area in 1981 and the federal marine park covers 99% of the Great Barrier Reef Region, while the remaining 1% is under the jurisdiction of The State of Queensland ( Day and Dobbs, 2013 ).

Table 2. Agencies, their scale of operation, and stated priorities relevant to the management of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR).

Beyond the boundaries of the GBR, including the larger land-sea interface, growth in mining and industry have led to an increase in development of ports and shipping, managed by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities, and Regional Development ( Table 2 ). Recent proposals for development of coal mines and adjacent ports within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) have been met with opposition by scientists who suggest that such development would lead to an increase in both locally derived water quality issues as well as contributing to climate change by further development of fossil fuels ( Hughes et al., 2017 ). The biggest local threat to the inshore reef is water quality ( MacNeil et al., 2019 ), while the greatest overall threats are related to climate change – causing increased water temperatures and bleaching events – which are global in nature and require high level action and international cooperation to address them ( Hughes et al., 2017 ). Much of the water pollution is related to catchment runoff from adjacent sugar cane farms which lead to increased sediment, nutrient, and pesticide loads to the GBRMP ( MacNeil et al., 2019 ). The State of Queensland manages water quality that flows to the Great Barrier Reef, and has targets to reduce sediment and nutrient loads in their draft water quality improvement plan for 2017–2022 ( Queensland, 2017 ).

The conflicting priorities among agencies managing the GBR are a direct result of the conflicting strategic directions of unaligned institutions. Activities in the Great Barrier Reef are regulated by complimentary legislation and joint field management, and permits between federal and state governments ( Day and Dobbs, 2013 ; Table 2 ). The GBRMPA employs a multiple-use marine spatial zone to separate conflicting activities.

In order for the Great Barrier Reef to persist into the future (SDG 14) and keep some development and conservation opportunities available (SDG 8), better alignment among regulatory bodies will be needed. In other words, for the strategic goals to be achievable and not contradictory, the tactical systems that support it need to be complementary.

Arriving at a Cohesive Overall Goal at the Strategic Scale Through Shared Planning at the Tactical Scale

A major conservation challenge identified by the GBRMPA and affiliated institutions concerns the synergistic impacts among ocean warming, the subsequent increased frequency of bleaching events, and the disproportionate impacts these events have on reefs with poor local water quality. While addressing climate change impacts of ocean warming are beyond the sole capacity of federal and state agencies, addressing water quality issues will require cooperation between The State of Queensland and the GBRMPA as well as discussion about the types of land-based industries and activities that are compatible with minimizing impacts on the Great Barrier Reef ( Table 2 ). Concessions by the agricultural and mining industries will undoubtedly need to be made to mitigate impacts on the Great Barrier Reef and the associated tourism industry, requiring high level vision at the strategic scale to steer the development of these industries. At the same time, mining and agriculture cannot be expected to end in the region. Instead, shared planning processes between the GBRMPA, state agencies, and mining and agriculture agencies can determine priority areas and activities for different land-and-sea uses ( Table 2 ).

Given the often competing interests of the regulatory bodies, it might be helpful to identify a common shared vision that all agencies can contribute to. Using a structured decision-making process, all relevant agencies and stakeholders can develop a common understanding of how the system operates, propose a series of alternative development trajectories (and associated consequences), and evaluate trade-offs of various scenarios ( Gregory et al., 2012 ). Though the likelihood that any resulting plan will fully satisfy all stakeholders is minute, research indicates that stakeholders who participate in planning processes generally consider the resulting decisions as more legitimate as those who do not ( Jentoft, 2000 ).

Case Study 4: Planning a Way to Address Illegal Fishing for Mexican Small Scale Fisheries – Using Operational Challenges to Inform the Tactical and Strategic Scales

Santa Cruz de Miramar, Mexico, is a community of around 1500 people and is economically dependent on a variety of coastal industries, including coastal tourism and artisanal fishing. It is the largest producer of oysters in the state, and a co-management scheme with a local cooperative of around 70 licensed fishers is responsible for much of the fishery. The cooperative was set up in the 1920s, and though it was weakened during a strong neoliberal push in the 1990s ( Basurto et al., 2013 ), it is being strengthened again, aided by local researchers and NGOs. However, despite the recent gains in local management capacity, the fishery has faced a number of challenges that local institutions cannot respond to, namely overharvesting, poaching, and sales of illegally fished product.

The problems with particular fisheries management programs (operational scale) – namely the enforcement of illegal fishing – was evaluated to look for ways in which institutional roles and collaboration (the tactical scale) and changes to broad policy along the land-sea interface (the strategic scale) could provide solutions ( De la Cruz-González et al., 2018 ).

Organizing Institutional Actors in the Tactical Scale and Re-evaluating the Goals of the Strategic Scale to Address Programs at the Operational Scale

To understand the causes and potential solutions around this problem, the cooperative partnered with the National Fisheries Institute (INAPESCA, the science branch of the federal fisheries management in Mexico) to undertake research to inform management strategy and coordination. This included mapping local oyster beds and analyzing population structures and market dynamics, which led to the implementation of individual daily allowable catches, minimum size limits, bed rotations and seasonal closures. This is all implemented, monitored, and enforced by the cooperative itself, including setting punishments for members who break rules, and evidence to date shows significant increases in catch and in value due to larger sizes and harvest timed to coincide with higher seasonal prices ( De la Cruz-González et al., 2018 ).

As part of a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis of the oyster fishery ( De la Cruz-González et al., 2018 ), local fishers identified “unclear institutional mandates and obligations” as a major weakness of the fishery. Cooperative fishers perceive federal institutions as responsible for regulatory services, including researching the status of local stocks and issuing fishing licenses. State agencies are perceived as operational agents, financing projects and monitoring quality controls. Local authorities are perceived as monitoring and responding to illegal fishing and preventing sales of illegally caught seafood, with a narrow scope but essential tactical actions. Local authorities, therefore, are perceived to be responsible for factors they have little capacity to resolve, and which state and federal agencies are mandated to address (i.e., issues of enforcement and organized crime). There are similar examples from around the world that show this type of interplay, where tactical and strategic levels of management operate (or are perceived to operate) almost independently of each other despite obvious overlaps in general goals. An active role of fishers and community leaders is crucial for propelling local sustainability actions but can be challenged by a lack of support or at least tacit approval of higher-level governance institutions. There is an increasingly strong and cross-scale movement to strengthen governance in support of artisanal fishers [ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2015 ], and a key component is a greater willingness of governments and institutions to share and devolve management power to communities, recognizing unique contexts that require unique knowledge and solutions even within broader national goals ( Lozano et al., 2019 ).

While most current attention for sustainable fisheries is focused on SDG 14 at a strategic scale (ensuring suitable conditions to promote life below water and manage extraction), it is clear that fisheries-related issues often have ultimate causes well beyond the purview of fisheries managers. In the case study presented here, two key additional strategic topics were recognized as important to address fishery sustainability ( De la Cruz-González et al., 2018 ). First, increasing coastal development and pollution from increasing tourism and urbanization are posing a risk to fishery productivity. Second, the lack of employment alternatives and lack of access to wider seafood markets leads to greater pressure on local fish stocks. In the specific context of the SDGs, continued fishery sustainability (SDG 14) would benefit from a greater integrated strategy designed to promote the co-benefits and avoid trade-offs with coastal development (SDG 9), sewage treatment (SDG 6), urban design (SDG 11), and economic opportunities (SDG 8). Because none of these issues are within the purview of fisheries management institutions, interfacing across institutions is evidently critical for success and this can indeed build on the SDGs themselves ( Singh et al., 2021 ).

Promoting sustainable development at the land-sea interface requires a coordinated governance structure that can effectively regulate and act within complex social-ecological systems. Achieving this coordination requires a systematic framework to align strategic priorities, tactical organization, and operational programming. Such a framework provides opportunities for both researcher and policymakers to engage in the process of sustainable development: for researchers it sets out particular research questions around particular planning scales (such as determining how goals fit together at the strategic scale, or evaluating the feasibility of promised activities given the institutional network supporting it at the operational and tactical scales). This research can build on innovative methods used to track relationships between sustainability goals, such as the Sustainable Development Goals. For policymakers, the benefit of the framework is structuring decisions at key governance levels and designing policy and programs that will minimize counterproductive activities and maximize chances of success. Despite the potential of this framework, it has not been formally tested. Though we explore four case studies using the framework in this study, this study is limited by retroactively interpreting cases through the lens of the framework. Future studies to develop this work should use this framework in active governance planning processes. Here, we propose the use of this framework for complex governance problems such as in the Great Barrier Reef – this case may benefit from a process guided by this approach, which would be timely given the multiple issues the region faces. Beyond this case, explicitly focusing on the alignment of various levels of governance scales can be applied across contexts, including in strategic planning and program development in Small Island Developing States, iconic marine areas in the world’s most developed countries, and fishing communities in coastal developing nations. Research and policy developed with such a governance framework can be particular important for coastal systems, which are arguably the most complex social-ecological systems on earth, and which are so important to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author Contributions

GS conceived of the manuscript. GS and RC created the figures. All authors wrote the manuscript, and each author contributed one case study.

Funding was provided by the Nippon Foundation Ocean Nexus Center at the University of Washington EarthLab, the Nippon Foundation Nereus Program, and the National Center of Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California Santa Barbara.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the support by the Nippon Foundation Ocean Nexus Center at the University of Washington EarthLab, the Nippon Foundation Nereus Program, the Ocean Frontier Institute, through an award from the Canada First Research Excellence Fund, and the National Center of Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California Santa Barbara.

• ^ https://tourism.gov.dm/

Barclay, J., Wilkinson, E., White, C. S., Shelton, C., Forster, J., Few, R., et al. (2019). Historical trajectories of disaster risk in Dominica. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 10, 149–165. doi: 10.1007/s13753-019-0215-z

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Barendsen, P. B., Boekhoudt, B., Boekhoudt, G., Carrillo, L., Derix, R., Franken, F., et al. (2008). WildAruba Conservation Planning Workshop Final Report. Apple Valley, MN: IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group.

Google Scholar

Basurto, X., Bennett, A., Weaver, A. H., Dyck, S. R. V., and Aceves-Bueno, J. S. (2013). Cooperative and noncooperative strategies for small-scale fisheries’ self-governance in the globalization era: implications for conservation. Ecol. Soc. 18:38.

Bekker, L.-G., Alleyne, G., Baral, S., Cepeda, J., Daskalakis, D., Dowdy, D., et al. (2018). Advancing global health and strengthening the HIV response in the era of the Sustainable Development Goals: the International AIDS Society—Lancet Commission. Lancet 392, 312–358.

Bennett, N. J., Blythe, J., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Singh, G. G., and Sumaila, U. R. (2019). Just transformations to sustainability. Sustainability 11:3881. doi: 10.3390/su11143881

Blanchard, J. L., Watson, R. A., Fulton, E. A., Cottrell, R. S., Nash, K. L., Bryndum-Buchholz, A., et al. (2017). Linked sustainability challenges and trade-offs among fisheries, aquaculture and agriculture. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1240–1249. doi: 10.1038/s41559-017-0258-8

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Blythe, J., Silver, J., Evans, L., Armitage, D., Bennett, N. J., Moore, M. L., et al. (2018). The dark side of transformation: latent risks in contemporary sustainability discourse. Antipode 50, 1206–1223. doi: 10.1111/anti.12405

Broman, G. I., and Robèrt, K.-H. (2017). A framework for strategic sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 17–31.

Christie, P. (2004). Marine protected areas as biological successes and social failures in Southeast Asia. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 42, 155–164

Cottrell, R. S., Fleming, A., Fulton, E. A., Nash, K. L., Watson, R. A., and Blanchard, J. L. (2018). Considering land–sea interactions and trade-offs for food and biodiversity. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 580–596. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13873

Cottrell, R. S., Nash, K. L., Halpern, B. S., Remenyi, T. A., Corney, S. P., Fleming, A., et al. (2019). Food production shocks across land and sea. Nat. Sustain. 2, 130–137. doi: 10.1038/s41893-018-0210-1

Day, J. C., and Dobbs, K. (2013). Effective governance of a large and complex cross-jurisdictional marine protected area: australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Mar. Policy 41, 14–24. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.020

De la Cruz-González, F. J., Patiño-Valencia, J. L., Luna-Raya, M. C., and Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M. (2018). Self-empowerment and successful co-management in an artisanal fishing community: santa Cruz de Miramar, Mexico. Ocean Coast. Manag. 154, 96–102. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.01.008

Division of Forestry, Parks, and Wildlife (2021). Forestry, Wildlife and Parks Division Available online at: https://forestry.gov.dm/ (accessed May 14, 2021).

Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica [GCD]. (2018). Dominica Emergency Agricultural Livelihoods and Resilience Project Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) , Queensland: Department of Agriculture, And Fisheries.

Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]. (2015). Voluntary Guidelines For Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries In The Context Of Food Security And Poverty Eradication. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., Mcdaniels, T., and Ohlson, D. (2012). Structured Decision Making: A Practical Guide To Environmental Management Choices. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Hakim, L., Siswanto, D., Rahardi, B., and Zayadi, H. (2019). Fostering coffee agroforestry for agrotourism development in degraded land in a buffer zone of a national park: a case study from Poncokusumo, Malang, Indonesia. EurAsian J. BioSci. 13, 1613–1620.

Halpern, B. S., Frazier, M., Potapenko, J., Casey, K. S., Koenig, K., Longo, C., et al. (2015). Spatial and temporal changes in cumulative human impacts on the world’s ocean. Nat. Commun. 6:7615.

Halpern, B. S., Mcleod, K. L., Rosenberg, A. A., and Crowder, L. B. (2008). Managing for cumulative impacts in ecosystem-based management through ocean zoning. Ocean Coast. Manag. 51, 203–211. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2007.08.002

Hughes, T. P., Barnes, M. L., Bellwood, D. R., Cinner, J. E., Cumming, G. S., Jackson, J. B., et al. (2017). Coral reefs in the Anthropocene. Nature 546, 82–90.

ICSU (2017). A Guide To SDG Interactions: From Science To Implementation. International Council for Science, Paris.

Jentoft, S. (2000). Legitimacy and disappointment in fisheries management. Mar. Policy 24, 141–148. doi: 10.1016/s0308-597x(99)00025-1

Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., and Rotmans, J. (2007). Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 14, 78–91. doi: 10.1080/13504500709469709

Lam, V. W., Allison, E. H., Bell, J. D., Blythe, J., Cheung, W. W., Frölicher, T. L., et al. (2020). Climate change, tropical fisheries and prospects for sustainable development. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 440–454.

Loorbach, D. (2007). Transition management. New mode of governance for sustainable development. Utrecht: International Books.

Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity−based governance framework. Governance 23, 161–183. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01471.x

Lotze, H. K., Lenihan, H. S., Bourque, B. J., Bradbury, R. H., Cooke, R. G., Kay, M. C., et al. (2006). Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science 312, 1806–1809. doi: 10.1126/science.1128035

Lotze, H. K., Tittensor, D. P., Bryndum-Buchholz, A., Eddy, T. D., Cheung, W. W., Galbraith, E. D., et al. (2019). Global ensemble projections reveal trophic amplification of ocean biomass declines with climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.U. S. A. 116, 12907–12912.

Lozano, A. G., Smith, H., and Basurto, X. (2019). Weaving governance narratives: discourses of climate change, cooperatives, and small-scale fisheries in Mexico. Marit. Stud. 18, 77–89. doi: 10.1007/s40152-018-0125-5

MacNeil, M. A., Mellin, C., Matthews, S., Wolff, N. H., Mcclanahan, T. R., Devlin, M., et al. (2019). Water quality mediates resilience on the Great Barrier Reef. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 620–627.

Division of Agriculture. (2021). Division of Agriculture [Online]. Available: http://divisionofagriculture.gov.dm/ (accessed May 14, 2021).

Mohan, P. (2017b). The economic impact of hurricanes on bananas: a case study of Dominica using synthetic control methods. Food Policy 68, 21–30. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.12.008

Mohan, P. (2017a). Impact of hurricanes on agriculture: evidence from the Caribbean. Nat. Hazards Rev. 18:04016012. doi: 10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000235

Nerini, F. F., Tomei, J., To, L. S., Bisaga, I., Parikh, P., Black, M., et al. (2018). Mapping synergies and trade-offs between energy and the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Energy 3, 10–15.

Nilsson, M., Chisholm, E., Griggs, D., Howden-Chapman, P., Mccollum, D., Messerli, P., et al. (2018). Mapping interactions between the sustainable development goals: lessons learned and ways forward. Sustain. Sci. 13, 1489–1503. doi: 10.1007/s11625-018-0604-z

Nilsson, M., Zamparutti, T., Petersen, J. E., Nykvist, B., Rudberg, P., and Mcguinn, J. (2012). Understanding policy coherence: analytical framework and examples of sector–environment policy interactions in the EU. Environ. Policy Gov. 22, 395–423. doi: 10.1002/eet.1589

Nordhaus, I., Roelke, D. L., Vaquer-Sunyer, R., and Winter, C. (2018). Coastal Systems In Transition: From A ‘Natural’to An ‘Anthropogenically-Modified’state. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Oduber, M., Ridderstaat, J., and Martens, P. (2015). The connection of vegetation with tourism development and economic growth: a case study for Aruba. J. Environ. Sci. Eng. 4, 420–431.

Pradhan, P., Costa, L., Rybski, D., Lucht, W., and Kropp, J. P. (2017). A systematic study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) interactions. Earths Future 5, 1169–1179. doi: 10.1002/2017ef000632

Queensland. (2017). Draft Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan 2017-2022 for Public Consultation. Queensland: Queensland Government

Ramdeen, R., Harper, S., Zeller, D. (2014). “Reconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for Dominica (1950-2010),” in Fisheries Catch Reconstructions, Part IV , eds Zylich, and K. D. Zeller, M. Ang, and D. Pauly (Islands: University of British Columbia), 33–41.

Rasul, G. (2016). Managing the food, water, and energy nexus for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in South Asia. Environ. Dev. 18, 14–25. doi: 10.1016/j.envdev.2015.12.001

Reay D. (ed.). (2019). “Climate-Smart Bananas,” in Climate-Smart Food , (Berlin: Springer), 81–91. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-18206-9_7

Rotmans, J., and Loorbach, D. (2009). Complexity and transition management. J. Ind. Ecol. 13, 184–196. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00116.x

Selig, E. R., Hole, D. G., Allison, E. H., Arkema, K. K., Mckinnon, M. C., Chu, J., et al. (2019). Mapping global human dependence on marine ecosystems. Conserv. Lett. 12:e12617.

Singh, G. G. (2020). Determining a path to a destination: pairing strategic frameworks with the Sustainable Development Goals to promote research and policy. Evol. Inst. Econ. Rev. 17, 521–539. doi: 10.1007/s40844-020-00162-5

Singh, G. G., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Swartz, W., Cheung, W., Guy, J. A., Kenny, T.-A., et al. (2018). A rapid assessment of co-benefits and trade-offs among Sustainable Development Goals. Mar. Policy 93, 223–231. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.030

Singh, G. G., Eddy, I. M., Halpern, B. S., Neslo, R., Satterfield, T., and Chan, K. M. (2020). Mapping cumulative impacts to coastal ecosystem services in British Columbia. PLoS One 15:e0220092. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220092

Singh, G. G., Hilmi, N., Bernhardt, J. R., Cisneros Montemayor, A. M., Cashion, M., Ota, Y., et al. (2019). Climate impacts on the ocean are making the Sustainable Development Goals a moving target travelling away from us. People Nat. 1, 317–330. doi: 10.1002/pan3.26

Singh, G. G., Oduber, M., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., and Ridderstaat, J. (2021). Aiding ocean development planning with SDG relationships in Small Island Developing States. Nat. Sustain. 4, 573–582.

Singh, G. G., Sinner, J., Ellis, J., Kandlikar, M., Halpern, B. S., Satterfield, T., et al. (2017). Mechanisms and risk of cumulative impacts to coastal ecosystem services: an expert elicitation approach. J. Environ. Manag. 199, 229–241. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.032

Ssebulime, G., Nyombi, K., Kagezi, G., Mpiira, S., Byabagambi, S., Tushemereirwe, W., et al. (2019). Assessing the potential of trees to sustain soil fertility in the banana agroforestry system in Uganda. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 43, 662–677. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2019.1566190

UN. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations

Waldron, A., Garrity, D., Malhi, Y., Girardin, C., Miller, D. C., and Seddon, N. (2017). Agroforestry can enhance food security while meeting other sustainable development goals. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 10:1940082917720667.

Worldbank. (2021). World Bank National Accounts Data, and OECD National Accounts data files. Washington, DC: World bank.

WTTC. (2019). Aruba 2019 Annual Research: Key Highlights. London: World Travel & Tourism Council.

Keywords : land-sea interface, transition management, sustainable development goals, governance, policy alignment, coastal systems

Citation: Singh GG, Cottrell RS, Eddy TD and Cisneros-Montemayor AM (2021) Governing the Land-Sea Interface to Achieve Sustainable Coastal Development. Front. Mar. Sci. 8:709947. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.709947

Received: 17 May 2021; Accepted: 12 July 2021; Published: 30 July 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Singh, Cottrell, Eddy and Cisneros-Montemayor. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Gerald G. Singh, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Sustainable Development Goal 14 - Life Below Water: Towards a Sustainable Ocean

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The Effectiveness, Costs and Coastal Protection Benefits of Natural and Nature-Based Defences

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America

Affiliation The Nature Conservancy / University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California, United States of America

Affiliation Department of Ocean Sciences, UC Santa Cruz / The Nature Conservancy, Santa Cruz, California, United States of America

Affiliation Instituto de Hidraulica Ambiental, ETSI de Caminos, Canales y Puertos, Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain

Affiliation Unit for Marine and Coastal Systems, Deltares / Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

Affiliation Coastal Planning and Engineering, CH2M HILL / University of Southampton, Swindon, United Kingdom

Affiliation Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California Davis, Davis, California, United States of America

Affiliation Wildlife Conservation Society / Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

Affiliation Environment and Natural Resources Global Practice, The World Bank, Washington, DC, United States of America

Affiliation Environmental Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi, United States of America

• Siddharth Narayan, 
• Michael W. Beck, 
• Borja G. Reguero, 
• Iñigo J. Losada, 
• Bregje van Wesenbeeck, 
• Nigel Pontee, 
• James N. Sanchirico, 
• Jane Carter Ingram, 
• Glenn-Marie Lange, 
• Kelly A. Burks-Copes

• Published: May 2, 2016
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735
• Reader Comments

There is great interest in the restoration and conservation of coastal habitats for protection from flooding and erosion. This is evidenced by the growing number of analyses and reviews of the effectiveness of habitats as natural defences and increasing funding world-wide for nature-based defences– i . e . restoration projects aimed at coastal protection; yet, there is no synthetic information on what kinds of projects are effective and cost effective for this purpose. This paper addresses two issues critical for designing restoration projects for coastal protection: (i) a synthesis of the costs and benefits of projects designed for coastal protection (nature-based defences) and (ii) analyses of the effectiveness of coastal habitats (natural defences) in reducing wave heights and the biophysical parameters that influence this effectiveness. We (i) analyse data from sixty-nine field measurements in coastal habitats globally and examine measures of effectiveness of mangroves, salt-marshes, coral reefs and seagrass/kelp beds for wave height reduction; (ii) synthesise the costs and coastal protection benefits of fifty-two nature-based defence projects and; (iii) estimate the benefits of each restoration project by combining information on restoration costs with data from nearby field measurements. The analyses of field measurements show that coastal habitats have significant potential for reducing wave heights that varies by habitat and site. In general, coral reefs and salt-marshes have the highest overall potential. Habitat effectiveness is influenced by: a) the ratios of wave height-to-water depth and habitat width-to-wavelength in coral reefs; and b) the ratio of vegetation height-to-water depth in salt-marshes. The comparison of costs of nature-based defence projects and engineering structures show that salt-marshes and mangroves can be two to five times cheaper than a submerged breakwater for wave heights up to half a metre and, within their limits, become more cost effective at greater depths. Nature-based defence projects also report benefits ranging from reductions in storm damage to reductions in coastal structure costs.

Citation: Narayan S, Beck MW, Reguero BG, Losada IJ, van Wesenbeeck B, Pontee N, et al. (2016) The Effectiveness, Costs and Coastal Protection Benefits of Natural and Nature-Based Defences. PLoS ONE 11(5): e0154735. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735

Editor: Maura (Gee) Geraldine Chapman, University of Sydney, AUSTRALIA

Received: January 11, 2016; Accepted: April 18, 2016; Published: May 2, 2016

This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supplementary Information files.

Funding: This research was primarily supported by the by SNAP: Science for Nature and People, a collaboration of The Nature Conservancy, the Wildlife Conservation Society and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS). The assistance and support of Dr. Filippo Ferrario, Laval University, Québec, is also gratefully acknowledged. We also gratefully acknowledge support from the Lyda Hill Foundation, a Pew Fellowship in Marine Conservation to MWB, and the World Bank WAVES program.

Competing interests: We note that one author is employed by a commercial company, Deltares, Rotterdamsweg 185, 2629HD Delft, The Netherlands. We declare that this does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Introduction

Tens of millions of people world-wide will be affected in the next few decades by coastal flooding due to sea-level rise and associated increases in wave action and surges [ 1 , 2 ]. In addition, coastal habitats are facing increasing risks world-wide as a result of human activity. These habitats provide a number of ecosystem services, or benefits, including coastal protection, fish production, recreation and other economic and cultural values [ 3 ]. In many instances the degradation of coastal habitats can result in a decrease in coastal protection and increase risk of coastal flooding [ 4 , 5 ]. Observations of extreme events like the Indian Ocean tsunami, Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina in the Atlantic and Typhoon Haiyan in the Pacific suggest that coastal habitats can help protect coastlines during such events [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. There is hence great interest in identifying effective, and cost effective solutions that help conserve habitats and protect coastlines [ 10 , 11 ].

While there is important interest in the conservation of habitats for the natural defence they provide, there is a particularly strong interest in investments in restoring coastal habitats for nature-based defences. In this paper, natural defences refer to existing coastal habitats within which wave reduction has been measured. Nature-based defences refer to restoration projects that specifically include coastal protection as an objective (definitions adapted from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report on Natural and Nature-based Features [ 12 ]). A number of restoration projects world-wide are being implemented specifically for coastal protection [ 13 ]. These are increasingly driven by global conventions and their funding mechanisms, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the green Adaptation Fund (AF), as well as the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) and lending from the World Bank. They are also being driven by interest from national and multi-national agencies [ 10 , 12 , 14 , 15 ]. But critical questions remain about when these projects can be used effectively for coastal protection, for example about the costs of a habitat restoration project relative to other, more conventional alternatives.

The contribution of habitats to coastal protection is increasingly addressed in science, policy and practice [ 16 , 17 , 18 ]. There is also a growing interest in developing guidance about habitat restoration for nature-based defences but this has largely been identified based more on case studies than syntheses [ 12 , 18 , 19 ]. Insights on the success or failure of projects, and comparisons with hard structures that perform similarly, under the same conditions, are difficult to obtain [ 20 ]. While there are a number of studies analysing the physical aspects of coastal protection by coastal habitats, there is very little information to date that combines this knowledge with information on restoration projects, to assess the performance and viability of these projects. This can hinder decision-making with regard to future investments in restoration projects for coastal protection.

Widespread consideration and use of habitats for coastal protection still face significant challenges including: a) uncertainty around the effectiveness of habitats under different hydrodynamic and ecological conditions; b) a lack of synthetic information about the costs and effectiveness of projects that restore or manage habitats for coastal protection; and c) a paucity of studies that integrate and synthesise engineering and ecological knowledge to provide site-specific comparisons of the costs and effectiveness of nature-based defences versus hard structures. This paper integrates analyses of (a) natural defences with information from (b) nature-based defence projects, to address these gaps and improve understanding of how and where coastal habitats may be viable for coastal protection.

This is done by: a) analysing field measurements of wave reduction within coastal habitats and the parameters that may drive variability in this function; and b) mapping and combining information from these field measurements with information on nearby nature-based defence projects, to compare their costs with hard structures that will provide the same level of wave reduction. First we extend previous syntheses of wave reduction field measurements in coastal habitats [ 21 , 22 , 23 ] to include more measurements and improve understanding of the variability across habitats in reducing wave heights, focusing in particular on engineering parameters that will be critical in assessing and designing restoration projects. In their re-analyses of field data, Pinsky et al., [ 23 ] show high variability in wave reduction between habitats and investigate the influence of biophysical parameters on this variability–namely, the local flow conditions (Reynold’s number) and the resistance to flow provided by the habitat (the bulk drag coefficient). In our study, data from field measurements are used to directly investigate the influence of biophysical parameters on this variability ( Fig 1 ). The field measurements are then mapped and, based on their location and habitat type, are combined with details of nearby nature-based defence projects. These nature-based defence projects are first analysed for their costs and benefits for coastal protection. Based on information from nearby field measurements, wave reduction extents are estimated for some of these projects and their costs compared to the costs of submerged breakwaters that will provide the same wave height reduction under the same conditions. These results provide insights on where and how coastal habitats and nature-based defence projects may be viable and cost effective, and also, on the key parameters that should be assessed when designing these projects.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Schematic showing general mechanics of wave height reduction through habitats, using the examples of coral reefs, seagrass beds and mangroves.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735.g001

Results and Discussion

This paper analyses sixty-nine field measurements to show that habitats have a significant influence on wave reduction, demonstrates the influence of specific engineering parameters on wave reduction effectiveness, reviews the costs and benefits of fifty-two nature-based defence projects ( Fig 2 ), and demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of some of these projects relative to structures that provide the same wave reduction.

Global map of a) wave height reduction in natural defences (n = 69) and b) Coastal protection benefits from restoration projects (n = 52). Panel (a) maps wave height reduction measurements in coral reefs, salt marshes, mangroves, seagrass beds, kelp beds; Panel (b) maps restoration projects reporting coastal protection benefits reviewed for coral reefs, salt marshes and mangroves (the literature search did not find information on oyster reef projects that observe coastal protection benefits). Colours indicate habitat groups in both panels. Circle sizes in (a) indicate the % wave height reduction measured at each site; shapes in (b) indicate type of coastal protection benefit reported (erosion control, flood control, or protection to structures) (see Table 1 ). Basemap image is the intellectual property of Esri and is reprinted from Esri under a CC BY license with permission from Esri and its licensors, all rights reserved. Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, NGA, USGS | Esri, HERE, DeLorme.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735.g002

Natural defences and wave reduction

Meta-analyses of sixty-nine studies, among five habitats world-wide (coral reefs, mangroves, salt-marshes, seagrass/kelp beds), show that these habitats reduce wave heights significantly (see Methods ) and this reduction varies with the habitat and the site. This is in line with findings from [ 21 ] and [ 23 ]. On average, coastal habitats reduce wave heights between 35% and 71%. Coral reefs reduce wave heights by 70% ( 95% CI : 54–81% ), salt-marshes by 72% ( 95%CI : 62–79% ), mangroves by 31% ( 95% CI : 25–37% ) and seagrass/kelp beds by 36% ( 95% CI : 25–45% ). Across all habitats, coral reefs emerge as having the greatest potential for coastal protection: they are highly effective at reducing wave heights and are also exposed to higher, more powerful waves. Salt-marshes are almost as effective in terms of wave reduction but occur in more sheltered environments. Mangroves and seagrass / kelp beds are about half as effective, with mangroves occurring in the most sheltered environments (see S1 Table ). The high reduction by coral reefs agrees with the results of [ 21 ], and the ordering of the other habitats is generally in agreement with the review by [ 23 ] which considered similar parameters in their re-analyses of field evidence for these habitats. There is also a strong positive, linear correlation between the extent of reductions in wave height, and the wave height before the habitat, in the order coral reefs > salt-marshes ~ mangroves > seagrass / kelp beds (see S1 Fig ).

The influence of design parameters commonly used in engineering such as habitat width, the ratio of habitat width to the wavelength, and the ratio of habitat height to the water level (see Introduction , Fig 1 ) were also examined. Wave reduction in each habitat is influenced by different parameters. In coral reefs, wave reduction is influenced by a) reef width ( S2 Fig ); b) reef depth relative to the wave height and; c) reef width relative to the average wavelength ( S3 Fig ). The most effective reefs are at least twice as wide as the wave-length, and located at depths that are at most, half the incoming wave height. There is limited data in salt-marshes that suggests that wave reduction is linearly correlated with the relative height of the marsh, i.e. the submergence of the vegetation relative to the water level ( S4 Fig ). Wave reduction in salt-marshes is highest when the canopy is close to the water surface. This suggests that designs of ‘greenbelts’ for coastal protection, rather than only relying on width-based criteria [ 24 , 25 ], should also account for the relationships between habitat and hydrodynamic variables at each site. is also emphasised by Koch et al., [ 26 ] who demonstrate spatial and temporal variations in wave reduction capacities across habitats. These analyses were performed only for coral reef and salt-marsh habitats. Mangroves and seagrass/kelp beds are not discussed due to the lack of comparable data on design parameters for these habitats.

Nature-based defence projects: costs, benefits and cost effectiveness for coastal protection

Table 1 summarises the costs, coastal protection benefits, objectives and exposure of fifty-two nature-based defence projects in coral reef, oyster reef, mangrove, and salt-marsh habitats. A sizeable proportion of salt-marsh and mangrove projects state that such habitats provide improved protection from storm events (41% in salt-marshes and 50% in mangroves; see Table 1 ). Other coastal protection benefits include savings in damages during storm events, reductions in erosion and reductions in the costs of engineering for coastal protection, reflected, in a few cases, by positive benefit-cost ratios (e.g. also see [ 20 ]). Restoration objectives vary across habitat types, with most mangrove and marsh habitats reporting coastal protection as a primary objective. Among the coral reefs a majority of projects are targeted primarily at habitat restoration and only a small number for coastal protection, even though many of these reefs are situated in highly exposed regions. Unit restoration costs are lowest for marshes and mangroves, and coral and oyster reefs show higher, and more variable, costs ( Table 1 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735.t001

Analyses of the costs and wave reduction of thirteen nature-based defence projects (see Methods , S4 Table ) in mangroves and salt-marshes show that these projects can be several times cheaper than alternative submerged breakwaters ( Fig 3 ) for the same level of protection. Together with their ability to keep pace with sea-level rise [ 27 ] this suggests that nature-based defences can become increasingly viable on sheltered coastlines. Depending on the water depth, mangrove projects in Vietnam can be three to five times cheaper than a breakwater, and salt-marsh projects across Europe and the USA vary from being just as expensive, to around three times cheaper ( Table 1 , Fig 3 ). Fig 3 plots the total restoration costs of mangrove and marsh projects along with breakwater construction costs at these sites for a range of depths and wave height reduction values. The cross-shore width of habitat and the degree of wave height reduction are also indicated for each project. Water depth is a crucial factor, with both habitats showing an increase in cost effectiveness at higher depths, due to the relatively steep increase in breakwater construction costs. Habitat width is found not to be a sufficient indicator of cost effectiveness. Also, these nature-based defences are limited to wave heights less than half a metre and are not always cost effective.

Costs of NbDs and cost curves of alternative breakwater structures plotted versus water depth are plotted for a) mangroves (n = 7) and breakwaters in Vietnam and; b) salt-marshes (n = 6) and breakwaters in Europe/USA. Circles represent NbDs and lines represent submerged breakwaters cost-curves in both panels. NbDs that fall below breakwater cost curves are cost effective in comparison. Breakwater cost curves are for an incident wave height Hsi of 0.2 m. All costs are represented on a per-metre coastline length basis (see Methods ). Fig only shows mangroves and marshes as these were the only habitat types and locations for which project information was found in close proximity to field measurements.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735.g003

Based on existing literature it was assumed that breakwater construction costs are uniform across the sites in Europe/USA and ten times lower for the sites in Vietnam [ 28 ]. Such regional differences are also reflected in the reported habitat restoration costs in these countries. While accurate estimates of construction costs require detailed information on structure profile, material and labour costs, etc., water depth is often a critical driver of construction costs [ 29 ] and therefore the main influence on cost effectiveness. Only total project costs and habitat extents were used, given the high variability in the relationship between restoration project costs and sizes (see Methods ). The study does not explicitly account for increases in restoration costs due to adverse ecological or geomorphic site conditions which can significantly increase these values [ 30 ].

In the cost comparisons we look for structures that are equivalent to marshes and mangroves in function–i.e. wave reduction, as well as location–i.e. within the near-shore zone, and choose submerged breakwaters as the best alternative. Submerged breakwaters provide wave reduction to varying degrees, similar to coastal habitats and can be located within the near-shore zone. Though seawalls are a common substitute for mangrove and marsh habitats [ 20 , 31 ], these are often located at the shoreline and, in addition to blocking waves, also protect against flooding from high water levels. While there are some indications that mangroves and marshes can offer protection from high water levels ( Table 1 ), we do not find enough evidence on this for a comparison of effectiveness, and as such, focus on their wave reduction function. While coral reefs are also very similar to breakwaters in structure and wave reduction function, we do not find enough information on reef restoration projects for a direct cost comparison. It is important to note that coastal habitats are usually one of several structural, nature-based and non-structural measures for coastal protection [ 32 ].

This study focuses on coastal protection by wave reduction, though habitats often provide other ecosystem services such as biodiversity, fish production, recreation and many other social, economic and cultural values [ 33 ]. The addition of these benefits, over and above their coastal protection value should make these natural approaches more appealing to coastal managers and decision-makers [ 34 ]. Also, the loss of existing coastal habitats and their replacement by man-made structures can result in loss of these ecosystem services [ 35 ]. In any case, policy decisions on where and how to conserve or restore habitats, rather than focusing on a single service, should consider multiple objectives for best allocation of available resources [ 36 , 37 ].

The data for the wave reduction analyses are all obtained from field observations of wave heights and hydrological variables. The datasets used in this study vary in terms of the type of data available for analysis, and these are described in S2 and S3 Tables. The wave reduction data are all field observations of wave heights through habitats ( S2 Table ). Almost all the studies provide information on habitat width, and most measurements in reefs also provide information on reef depth. Only a few studies–all in marshes, provide information on vegetation heights. The restoration project data are a mix of primary–i.e. observed and secondary–i.e. estimated costs and benefits ( S3 Table ). The coastal setting and exposure data for each project location are derived from other sources (see S1 Methods ). Cost reporting by projects is highly variable (see Methods ). All costs are reported on a per-m 2 basis, and use total project costs for the cost comparison analyses. Ideally, in future, cost reporting in projects should be consistent and report both unit and total restoration costs. More such comparisons with hard alternatives, along with detailed and consistent data on the extents, costs and coastal protection benefits of existing restoration projects, are needed to inform the design and implementation of future nature-based defences.

We are interested in general conclusions about the parameters that influence wave reduction across multiple habitats and physical conditions. Therefore, the study uses average values of vegetation height and water depth for the parameter analyses. It is worth emphasising that the measurements of waves in the analysed studies are all under ‘normal’ conditions of low waves. Mean wave height values are used for the meta-analyses. Variations in wave height measurements at each site are accounted for within the analyses (see S1 Methods ). However, when analysing extreme value measurements, it will be necessary to include analyses of variances to assess the effect on wave reduction. Also, site-specific variations in all these parameters will need to be considered when designing a nature-based defence project. For instance, the slope of a coral reef can influence variations in wave reduction over that reef [ 38 ] and hence, its effectiveness as a nature-based defence. Wave height is the response variable for the meta-analyses, following a number of the reviewed studies that report reductions in terms of wave heights. Field measurements and analyses of wave energy, rather than wave height, may provide a better picture of the processes that drive wave reduction at each site [ 21 ].

Field evidence of the protection offered by habitats is generally difficult to obtain. However, clear differentiation of measured parameters–i.e. physical reduction of wave heights or storm surges, versus economic savings in damage costs during extreme events–is essential to understand the extents to which, and conditions under which, different habitats offer protection. For instance, the review of nature-based defence projects suggests that mangroves are effective protection measures against flooding from storms ( Table 1 , S3 Table ). The meta-analyses of wave heights however show that wave height measurements in mangroves have so far been limited to lower waves than in salt-marshes ( Table 1 , S1 Table ).

Future studies of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness would also be strengthened by paired measurements of wave height reduction with and without habitat [ 39 ] accompanied by information on habitat parameters such as height, density and roughness [ 40 , 41 , 42 ]. A small but growing number of field observations, laboratory experiments and numerical models suggest that reefs and wetlands can act as buffers against extreme waves and water levels [ 8 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ], though the observed data for extreme events is scant. It will also be critical to get similar field measurements of wave and water level reductions by habitats during extreme events [ 47 ]. When evaluating restoration projects for coastal protection, it would be useful to follow monitoring and evaluation procedures set out within established coastal engineering frameworks. These could usefully include demonstrations of projects implemented in different physical settings [ 20 ], theoretical design frameworks [ 48 , 49 ], or even, evaluations of nature-based defences within national accounts [ 37 ]. Such evaluation typically involves a before-after comparison of the coastal hazard at the site. However, a restoration project can typically have multiple objectives, the evaluation of which will require monitoring of outcomes at multiple impact and reference sites.

Conclusions

This paper is, as far as the authors are aware, the first attempt at synthesising evidence from field measurements and restoration projects to provide an overview of the wave reduction by natural defences, in combination with site-specific comparisons of the costs of nature-based defences versus alternative structures. The paper also synthesises information on the benefits of restoration projects for coastal protection. These analyses and syntheses demonstrate the following: a) coastal habitats–particularly coral reefs and salt-marshes–have significant potential for reducing wave heights and providing protection at the shoreline; b) restoration projects for which data are available–i.e., mangrove and marsh projects–can be cost-effective relative to submerged breakwaters in attenuating low waves and become more cost-effective at higher water depths; c) a number of nature-based defence projects, especially in mangroves and marshes, have been observed to offer protection during storms. Variations in wave reduction and cost effectiveness are dependent on multiple parameters including water depth and vegetation / reef height.

Examples of nature-based defence projects are growing rapidly in number, but much better reporting of effectiveness and cost effectiveness is necessary, for better understanding of their viability. Data from post-project monitoring of the success or failure of restoration projects are not easily available. As with any hard engineering structure, information on nature-based defence project failures–i.e. the reasons why a particular project did not work can also be very valuable when developing guidelines and methodologies for project design. This would include, for instance, before and after observations of whether a restoration project designed for coastal protection has achieved its stated objectives. Ideally, project costs, site conditions and wave reduction extents should be measured at the same location. This will allow better understanding of variations in project costs with variations in water levels, wave conditions and habitat characteristics. This is particularly important for a future where variations in rates of sea-level rise and other environmental factors can result in a spatial variability in wave heights [ 50 , 51 ]. Also, better estimates of maintenance costs and the additional services and benefits (including coastal access, fish production, carbon sequestration) or lack thereof, for both artificial and nature-based defences are required when evaluating the overall costs and benefits of a restoration project that includes coastal protection as an objective. Finally, inclusion of dune and also beach habitats [ 52 ] would vastly improve the richness of existing nature-based defence databases.

The analyses of wave reduction measurements and restoration projects were conducted using two separate datasets with some overlap in habitat types. The wave reduction meta-analyses were performed for observations of wave heights in coastal habitats that provided information on wave heights with (before) and without (after) the habitat. In the meta-analyses, seagrass and kelp beds were treated together due to similarities in location and the mechanism by which they reduce wave heights (see Fig 1 ). The analyses of costs and benefits of nature-based defence projects were done for fifty-two restoration projects in coral reefs, oyster reefs, salt-marshes and mangroves, that were specifically targeted at coastal protection. Only studies that provided some quantitative information (observed or estimated) on project extents, costs and/or benefits were included in the analyses. The literature search did not find any projects within seagrass or kelp beds that met these criteria. Similarly, no wave reduction field measurements within oyster reefs were found. The cost-comparisons to alternative breakwaters were limited to habitats for which field measurement and project sites could be paired, which were only in mangroves and salt-marshes (see Nature-based defence project costs benefits and cost-effectiveness in this section).

Broadly, wave reduction in habitats occurs by two mechanisms–(i) wave-breaking due to changes in water depth (i.e. in reefs) and; (ii) damping of wave energy and, hence, wave height through friction (i.e. in wetland habitats like mangroves, marshes or seagrass beds). This reduction in wave height depends on habitat and site-specific ecological and geophysical parameters that influence the dynamics of incoming waves ( Fig 1 ). For instance, wave reduction in coral reefs is mainly influenced by: (i) the relative wave height, i.e. the ratio H/h where h is the depth of the reef and H the wave height; and (ii) the relative width, i.e. the ratio B/L, where B is the width of the reef and L the length of the incoming wave [ 53 , 54 ]. In vegetated habitats, the height, geometry and shoot/stem density of the habitat, have all been shown to affect wave reduction in flume studies and models [ 55 , 56 , 57 ]. A key parameter in intertidal vegetated habitats such as mangroves and marshes is the relative height of the vegetation i.e. the ratio h v /h, where h v is the height of the vegetation canopy and h the water depth. In addition, these habitats are known to trap sediments [ 57 , 58 ], raising the near-shore bathymetry and thereby increasing their capacity to reduce waves. Wave heights within deeper vegetated habitats such as seagrass beds are also affected by changes in bathymetry [ 53 ].

For studies that directly report incoming and transmitted wave heights (as opposed to studies that only report percentage reductions) we also showed the variation of absolute reduction extents versus incoming wave heights (see S2 Fig ). However, for the analyses of design parameters, percentage reductions in wave heights were used to avoid compounding influences from other parameters. For this, average values of habitat widths, water depths and vegetation heights were extracted from the data. The average values of wavelength were obtained at each location from a global dataset of wave characteristics [ 60 ]. These were used to assess the response of wave height reduction to specific non-dimensional parameters: i) relative wave height H i /h, where h is the average water depth across the habitat transect; ii) relative width B/L, where L is the average annual deep-water wavelength at the habitat location and; iii) relative vegetation height h v /h in intertidal habitats where h v is the average vegetation height across the transect. The first two parameters—H i /h and B/L are dependent on the incoming wave height. Therefore, studies that only report wave reduction ratios–i.e. do not report incident wave heights, were excluded for these parameters. The influence of bathymetry on wave height reduction was not accounted for, except where the study reported measurements from adjacent transects with and without the habitat. The extent to which bathymetry influences wave height reduction varies between habitat types and, in most cases, bathymetry is either a direct function of habitat presence (in reefs) or has a relatively minor influence on wave height reduction (in mangroves and salt-marshes).

Nature-based defence projects: costs, benefits and cost-effectiveness

The analyses of costs and benefits of restoration projects were done for fifty-two projects in coral reefs, salt-marshes, mangroves and oyster reefs. An initial systematic search was conducted for peer-reviewed literature and grey literature (e.g. reports, assessments, surveys, etc.) on the coastal protection and risk reduction costs and benefits of projects involving restoration and management of coastal habitats. The search was conducted in English on the Google Web and Google Scholar databases. We only searched for projects that were targeted at coastal protection and reported sufficient information on costs and habitat characteristics for further analyses (see S1 Methods , S3 Table ). Studies that did not deal with coastal protection as a stated objective were excluded. Studies that did not report data on either costs or benefits were also excluded. From the fifty-two projects, a subset was identified that also reported observed and estimated coastal protection benefits of various types. Cost reporting in the project dataset is highly variable: of the 52 projects, fourteen do not report any costs, seventeen report total restoration costs, nine report costs on a per-m 2 basis, nine on a per-hectare basis, two as per-metre coastline length and one as per-kilometre coastline length ( S3 Table ). All costs were summarised on a per m 2 basis. All reported monetary values were standardised to 2014 US$ equivalents by inflating these from the project year to 2014 using appropriate Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflator indices and converting the inflated costs to 2014 US $ [ 61 , 62 ].

To provide a direct comparison of restoration projects with engineering alternatives, the costs of restoration projects were compared to the costs of structures that would achieve the same wave reduction. We were unable to find projects that reported specific comparisons to coastal structures or other measures of effectiveness (e.g., reduction of waves, erosion rates or flood volumes). Ideally, in future, more demonstration and reference sites would be available at multiple scales, to be able to compare the costs and effectiveness of nature-based defences versus artificial structures [ 27 ]. Submerged breakwaters were chosen for the cost comparisons since these structures perform similarly with regard to reduction of wave heights at the coastline. It is recognised that restoration costs do not vary linearly with habitat size. Therefore, information on restoration costs was combined with data from nearby measurements of wave heights to estimate the wave reduction benefits of each restoration project. The cost of breakwater needed to achieve the same wave reduction benefits in that location was then calculated. All costs are presented on a per metre coastline length basis.

Construction costs for breakwaters in Vietnam were assumed to be ten times less than in Europe and the USA due to lower labour and material costs [ 28 ]. Since structure costs are critically dependent on water depth we also generated cost curves for breakwater construction at different water depths for a fixed wave height of 0.2 m–the average wave height across all NbD sites, and plotted these together with NbD costs ( Fig 3 ). In estimating breakwater costs, a constant representative crest width, W of 2 m was assumed.

Supporting Information

S1 fig. absolute wave reduction versus wave heights..

Absolute wave reduction extents are plotted against incident wave height for a) coral reefs (n = 27); b) mangroves (n = 11); c) salt-marshes (n = 14); d) seagrass/kelp beds (n = 5). This plot excludes measurements that do not report incoming wave heights.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735.s001

S2 Fig. Percentage wave reduction versus habitat width.

Field measurements of % wave height reduction are plotted versus habitat width for a) coral reefs (n = 34); b) mangroves (n = 14); c) salt-marshes (n = 15); d) seagrass/kelp beds (n = 6). Significant relationship found only for coral reefs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735.s002

Percentage wave height reduction versus a) relative wave height and b) relative width in coral reefs. Field measurements of % wave height reduction are plotted versus non-dimensional engineering parameters: (a) Hi/h in reefs (left, n = 27), red line indicates depth-limiting ratio for wave height, Hi/h = 0.78; (b) B/L in coral reefs (right, n = 34). Plot (b) shown for the blue region in inset. Red circle indicates outlier points excluded in regression analyses (see S1 Methods ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735.s003

S4 Fig. Percentage wave height reduction versus relative height of salt-marshes.

Field measurements of % wave height reduction versus non-dimensional parameter, h v /h in salt-marshes (n = 8). Red line indicates relative vegetation height h v /h = 1, below which the vegetation is fully submerged. One point (circled in red) with very low relative height and very high wave attenuation was excluded as an outlier for the regression analysis (see S1 Methods ). We do not perform regression analyses for mangroves and seagrass/kelp beds due to insufficient information on engineering parameters for these habitats.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735.s004

S5 Fig. Log response ratio of wave reduction effect size by habitat type.

Average effect size as log response ratio of the wave reduction, R due to each habitat type for coral reefs, salt-marshes, mangroves and seagrass/kelp beds. Dots represent average values and error bars represent 95% Confidence Intervals). The averages are considered significant (p<0.05) when the error bars do not overlap zero (see S1 Methods ). The number of independent studies analysed is indicated in brackets.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735.s005

S6 Fig. Cross-section of a rubble-mound breakwater.

Simplified submerged breakwater cross-section for replacement cost estimates, showing parameters that affect wave transmission. Fig is adapted from van der Meer et al. (2005) and US Army Corps of Engineers (2015b).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735.s006

S1 Methods. Supplementary Methods.

See file “ S1 Methods .”

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735.s007

S1 Table. Wave reduction percentages, habitat and site properties for different habitat types (see Fig 1 for parameter definitions).

n = total number of field measurements for each habitat. Values in brackets indicate 95% confidence intervals.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735.s008

S2 Table. Wave height, habitat conditions and site condition measurements.

Metadata included within file.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735.s009

S3 Table. Project data on habitat type, conditions, project extents, costs and benefits.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735.s010

S4 Table. Project–Field Measurement Pairs for Replacement Cost Ratio Analyses.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735.s011

Acknowledgments

This research was primarily supported by the by SNAPP: Science for Nature and People Partnership, a collaboration of The Nature Conservancy, the Wildlife Conservation Society and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS). The assistance and support of Dr. Filippo Ferrario, Laval University, Québec is also gratefully acknowledged. We also gratefully acknowledge support from the Lyda Hill Foundation, a Pew Fellowship in Marine Conservation to MWB, and the World Bank WAVES program. The authors are very grateful to the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments that helped strengthen this paper.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: SN MWB JCI. Performed the experiments: SN MWB BGR. Analyzed the data: SN MWB BGR BvW IJL. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: SN MWB IJL JNS. Wrote the paper: SN MWB IJL BvW BGR NP JCI GML JNS KBC.

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 3. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Guide to the Millenium Assessment Reports. UNEP.
• 6. Holtz M (2013) Saved by the Mangroves? A Philippines town dodges Haiyan's storm surge. In: PRI, editor. Human Needs: PRI's The World.
• 10. The White House (2015) Incorporating Natural Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services in Federal Decision-Making. The White House.
• 11. Beck MW, Acosta-Morel M, Narayan S, Rittelmeyer P (2015) How Protective Services from Mangroves & Coral Reefs Have Influenced Coastal Decisions in Policy and Practice. In: Beck MW, Lange G-M, editors. Guidelines for Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Accounting: Incorporating the Protective Services of Coral Reefs and Mangroves in National Wealth Accounts. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
• 12. Bridges T, Wagner PW, Burks-Copes KA, Bates ME, Collier ZA, Fischenich CJ, et al. (2015) Use of Natural and Nature-Based Features (NNBF) for Coastal Resilience. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Corps of Engineers: Engineer Research and Development Center.
• 13. SNAPP Coastal Defenses Working Group (2014) Natural Defense Projects SNAP Coastal Defenses Working Group.
• 14. European Commission (2013) An EU-wide strategy on Green Infrastructure: Enhancing Europe's Natural Capital. Green Infrastructure: The European Commission.
• 15. Committee on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Science Engineering and Planning: Coastal Risk Reduction, Water Science and Technology Board, Ocean Studies Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies (2014) Reducing Coastal Risks on the East and Gulf Coasts; National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, editor. Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. 208 p.
• 25. Saenger P (2011) Mangroves: Sustainable Management in Bangladesh. In: Günter S, Weber M, Stimm B, Mosandl R, editors. Silviculture in the Tropics: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 339–347.
• 28. Hillen M, Jonkman S, Kanning W, Kok M, Geldenhuys M, Stive M (2010) Coastal defence cost estimates: Case study of the Netherlands, New Orleans and Vietnam. TU Delft, Department Hydraulic Engineering. 0169–6548 0169–6548.
• 29. US Army Corps of Engineers (2015) North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study Report: Appendix T Coastal Storm Risk Management Measures. US Army Corps of Engineers North Atlantic Division.
• 33. IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies) (2011) Breaking the waves: Impact analysis of coastal afforestation for disaster risk reduction in Vietnam. Geneva: IFRC. 51 p.
• 36. Atkinson SC, Jupiter SD, Adams VM, Ingram CJ, Narayan S, Klein CJ, et al. (2016) Prioritising mangrove ecosystem services results in spatially variable management priorities. Accepted. PLoS ONE.
• 37. Sanchirico J, Siikamaki J, Lange G-M, Riddle A (2015) Approaches for Valuing Coastal Protection Services in a Natural Capital Accounting Framework. In: Beck MW, Lange G-M, editors. Guidelines for Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Accounting: Incorporating the Protective Services of Coral Reefs and Mangroves in National Wealth Accounts. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
• 47. Ferreira Research Group (2015) Hurricane Storm Surge Attenuation by Wetlands. George Mason University.
• 48. US Army Corps of Engineers (2002) Coastal Engineering Manual. (Available online at http://smos.ntou.edu.tw/CEM.htm ): USACE.
• 49. de Vriend H, Van Koningsveld M (2012) Building with Nature. Thinking, acting and interacting differently Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Ecoshape, Building with Nature.
• 50. Wong PP, Losada IJ, Gattuso JP, Hinkel J, Khattabi A, McInnes KL, et al. (2014) Coastal systems and low-lying areas. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA. 361–409 p.
• 58. McIvor A, Spencer T, Möller I, Spalding M (2013) The response of mangrove soil surface elevation to sea level rise. Natural Coastal Protection Series: Report 3.
• 59. Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H (2005) Comprehensive meta-analysis version 2. Englewood, NJ: Biostat 104.
• 61. XE (2014) XE Live Exchange Rates.
• 62. FXTOP (2014) Inflation calculator and change of price between 2 dates.
• 63. Piccoli C (2014) Economic optimization of breakwaters-Case study: Maintenance of Port of Constantza’s Northern Breakwater: TU Delft, Delft University of Technology.
• 64. Hoozemans F, Marchand M, Pennekamp H (1993) Sea level rise: a global vulnerability assessment for population, coastal wetlands and rice production on a global scale. Deltares.

Blue Economy

A healthy ocean provides jobs and food, sustains economic growth, regulates the climate, and supports the well-being of coastal communities.

Billions of people worldwide —especially the world’s poorest— rely on a healthy ocean as a source of jobs and food, underscoring the urgent need to sustainably use, manage and protect this natural resource.

Yet the ocean is going through a triple environmental crisis: (1) the impact of climate change on the ocean - the largest global carbon sink; (2) biodiversity losses; and (3) pollution, in particular plastic pollution. This is not just degrading the ocean but endangering the safety, livelihoods, and food security of people, especially coastal communities.

The ocean is the largest carbon sink, absorbing greenhouse gases and significantly mitigate the impacts of climate change – yet the ocean is threatened by rising temperatures, acidification, and sea level rise. “Blue carbon” sinks such as mangroves tidal marshes, and seagrass meadows  sequester and store more carbon per unit area than terrestrial forests . They also protect coastal communities from floods and storms. Properly valuing the role played by mangroves and seagrass beds – can achieve the triple win of: adaptation and resilience to sea level rise and erosion; addressing climate crisis with its critical role in storing carbon and reducing ocean acidification; and ensuring coastal communities are safer and more prosperous.

The   FAO estimates  that around 58.5 million people are employed worldwide in primary fish production alone – of which approximately 21 percent women. Including subsistence and secondary-sector workers, and their dependents, it is estimated that about 600 million livelihoods depend at least partially on fisheries and aquaculture.  Most are in developing countries, and are small-scale, artisanal fishers and fish farmers. In 2019 aquatic foods provided about 3.3 billion people with at least 20 percent of their average intake of animal protein, with an even higher proportion in many poor countries, (FAO 2022). And yet, while ocean resources boost growth and wealth, they have been brought to the brink from anthropogenic impacts. The FAO estimates that, worldwide, the percentage of fishery stocks not within biologically sustainable levels rose from 10 percent in 1974 to 35.4 percent in 2019.

Globally, fish stocks are significantly affected by illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing, though the exact magnitude of the matter is difficult to assess accurately. According to the World Bank study  The Sunken Billions Revisited ,  fishing less would result in a 40% increase in global landed value, while also reducing the costs by more than 40%. The study further shows that a sustainable equilibrium for global marine fisheries, at which point the maximum net benefits could be achieved, would require a reduction of the global fishing effort by 44%. Improved fisheries management, investment in sustainable aquaculture and protection of key habitats could help restore the productivity of the ocean and generate benefits worth billions of dollars in developing countries, while ensuring future growth, food security and jobs for coastal communities.

The ocean is threatened by marine pollution from multiple sources, mostly land-based but also from activities at sea. Plastics are one of the most visible parts of this pollution; and microplastics have been found around the world, in the food chain, air, ocean, rainwater, and ice in the Arctic. Plastic pollution hurts economies, ecosystems, food security, and evidence is rising on potential impacts on human health, including presence of microplastics in our blood. Without proper actions along the value chain, the total cost to governments of managing plastic waste between 2021 and 2040 will by some estimates reach US$670 billion, and the cost of inaction can be particularly high for businesses (estimated at US$100 billion annual financial risk, by 2040).  Addressing plastic pollution  requires a combination of solutions that are complex, multi-sectoral, and country specific. It requires putting a stop to leakages by improving solid waste management, building a more circular economy for public and private sector (including designing out waste and pollution, developing alternatives to single-use plastics or redesigning them to make them more recyclable, promoting the development of new industry sectors such as reuse/remanufacture, and developing more financially sustainable recycling markets), and restoring ecosystems through clean-up.

The maritime economy is vast. Marine shipping accounts for trillions of dollars in trade. Ocean tourism is also valued in the trillions. Offshore energy, such as oil, gas, and wind, also make up the maritime economy.

Looking the linkages between climate, biodiversity, and development across oceanic sectors must be considered. What is needed is a sustainable and integrated development approach of the different economic sectors for a healthy ocean, not business-as-usual siloed approach.

Coastal communities, particularly in small island developing states, are heavily reliant on marine resources for their livelihoods and food security. Engaging these communities in conservation, restoration, and sustainable management of natural habitats can provide much-needed income in the short term, while building socio-economic resilience in the long-term.

Last Updated: Sep 15, 2023

As of FY23, the World Bank’s blue economy portfolio exceeds 8 billion in active projects, including in sustainable fisheries and aquaculture, integrated coastal and marine ecosystem management, circular economy and improved solid waste management of marine plastics, sustainable coastal tourism, maritime transport, and offshore renewable energy.

The World Bank helps countries promote strong governance of marine and coastal resources to improve their contribution to sustainable and inclusive economies through analytics, knowledge products, technical expertise, and financing.

The World Bank is transforming its ocean portfolio with a focus on the Blue Economy, defined as the integrated and sustainable development of oceanic sectors in a healthy ocean.

The Bank’s engagement in the Blue Economy is supported by  PROBLUE ,  which aims to support a healthy and productive ocean and the implementation of  Sustainable Development Goal 14 (SDG 14) . PROBLUE is fully aligned with the World Bank’s vision to create a world free of poverty on a livable planet. This umbrella multi-donor trust fund, administered by the World Bank, focuses on four key themes:

1.     Fisheries and Aquaculture: Improving fisheries by tackling the underlying causes of overfishing and strengthening aquaculture sustainability

2.     Marine Pollution: Addressing threats posed to ocean health from marine pollution, including litter and plastics, from marine or land-based sources

3.     Oceanic Sectors: Enhancing sustainability of key oceanic sectors such as tourism, maritime transport, and offshore renewable energy

4.     Integrated Seascape Management: Building government capacity to manage marine resources, including nature-based solutions, and to mobilize private sector finance.

Regional programs include: support for developing the Blue Economy in the Eastern  Caribbean ,  South West Indian Ocean  fisheries management, and regional technical assistance to combat marine pollution and coastal erosion in the  Middle East and North Africa  and  West Africa .

PROBLUE works globally to support and drive solutions for lasting ocean and marine health in the face of climate change, as well as sustainable development of oceanic sectors. This includes developing and rolling out innovative tools, guidelines, and methodologies to enhance operations and empower PROBLUE client countries to lead climate mitigation and adaptation and blue economic development. 

The Bank also contributes to knowledge around the  ocean  and  fisheries  with publications such as:

• Riding the Blue Wave: Applying the Blue Economy Approach to World Bank Operations
• Global Seaweed New and Emerging Markets Report 2023
• Detox Development: Repurposing Environmentally Harmful Subsidies
• Distributing Carbon Revenues from Shipping
• Bridging the Gap in Solid Waste Management: Governance requirements for Results
• Banking on Protected Areas : Promoting Sustainable Protected Area Tourism to Benefit Local Economies
• The Potential of Zero-Carbon Bunker Fuels in Developing Countries
• The Role of LNG in the Transition Toward Low- and Zero-Carbon Shipping
• Climate Change and Marine Fisheries in Africa : Assessing Vulnerability and Strengthening Adaptation Capacity
• The Sunken Billions Revisited: Progress and Challenges in Global Marine Fisheries  (a follow-up report to  The Sunken Billions: The Economic Justification for Fisheries Reform )
• What a Waste 2.0 : A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050
• The Potential of the Blue Economy Report , which discusses long-term benefits of the sustainable use of marine resources for small island developing states and coastal least developed countries.

Over the past years, the Bank has produced analytics and knowledge products for countries around the world to advise on the way forward.

The Bank convenes partners and stakeholders to mobilize ocean investment, advocate for positive reforms and ensure that a healthy ocean remains on the global development agenda. It also works through partnerships, including via PROBLUE.

The  West Africa Coastal Areas Management Program (WACA)  aims to improve the management of shared natural and man-made risks affecting coastal communities in 17  West African countries  on the coastline, from Mauritania to Gabon. The WACA program provides countries with access to technical expertise and finance to support the sustainable development of coastal zones, using the management of coastal erosion and hazardous flooding as entry point. The program consists of a series of coastal resilience investment projects (ResIP) and a scale-up Platform. The WACA ResIP was approved by the World Bank in April 2018. The financial package includes $190 million from the World Bank's International Development Association (IDA) and a grant of $20.25 million from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to initially cover six countries (Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Mauritania, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal and Togo). Preparations are underway to start projects in Ghana and Nigeria. WACA works with existing regional institutions, including the West Africa Economic and Monetary Union, the Abidjan Convention, the Center for Ecological Monitoring, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The WACA Platform has three functions: to facilitate and increase access to knowledge, expertise, global good practices, and technical assistance; to leverage and crowd-in financing for coastal resilience investments; and to provide a forum for dialogue to facilitate the involvement of other key partners, including the private sector. Currently, partners in France, Japan, Netherlands, Nordic countries, and Spain are engaged in scaling up the finance needed for coastal resilience through the WACA Finance Marketplace.

In 2022, the World Bank  Coastal Fisheries Initiative – Challenge Fund (CFI-CF)   launched a competition  seek collaborative solutions to reduce overfishing by supporting coordination among fishers and collaboration across seafood value chains. In August, CFI-CF announced the winners of its competition for collaborative solutions to overfishing. They demonstrated the power of collaboration between seafood value chain actors with common goals. The competition sought applicants from  Cabo Verde, Ecuador, Indonesia,  and  Peru  who submitted thirty proposals. The four winners and four runners-up outlined original approaches for how their coalitions will reduce overfishing, improve sustainable fishing practices, and increase incomes of fishers and others in value chain. They focus on diverse approaches, tailored to local conditions, such as sustainable product marketing, improved fishing equipment and practices, and supply chain initiatives to build the seafood industry and consumer support. The winning solutions are described on SolutionsToOverfishing.org .

In the Southwest Indian Ocean,  Mozambique ’s fisheries sector has great growth potential and the ability to boost economic output by providing significantly larger returns and by contributing to poverty alleviation. The Mais Peixe Sustentável project under the  SWIOFish Program  aims to reduce rural poverty, increase shared prosperity and promote development by encouraging investment in sustainable fisheries and aquaculture value chains. More than a thousand artisanal fisher households have already benefited from the project since its launch in February 2019.

In  Vietnam , the World Bank has helped the government understand sources of land-based plastic pollution to inform the implementation of their National Action Plan on the Management of Marine Plastic Litter. In addition, it devised a roadmap that supports the government in phasing out the production, import, and use of certain single-use plastics. The World Bank also supports the implementation of the Action Plan for Marine Plastic Waste Management in the Fisheries Sector. The Bank has conducted investment and reform analysis for solid waste management in selected cities. A joint World Bank and IFC team paved the way for private sector solutions in plastics recycling via value-chain diagnostics and public-private dialogue, and ultimately to catalyze investments.

Indonesia —the world’s largest archipelagic country—is home to rich ocean ecosystems of tremendous economic potential. For over two decades, the  Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Project  (COREMAP) has been supporting the government of Indonesia in harnessing the benefits of the blue economy. The initial stages of COREMAP successfully supported communities in taking part in managing their own coastal resources. Now in its third phase, the project is strengthening Indonesia's ocean research capacity by upgrading laboratories, training scientists, and undertaking nationwide ecosystem monitoring. It is also improving management effectiveness in nationally significant marine protected areas in Raja Ampat, West Papua and Sawu Sea, East Nusa Tenggara, through ecotourism initiatives, community-based surveillance against illegal fishing, and threatened species conservation.

The  Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (PROP)  is working with seven countries and the Pacific regional Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) to support the management of the region’s greatest wealth: the fish stocks of the Pacific Ocean and the environments that support them. PROP consists of both oceanic and coastal fisheries components that support countries to better manage fisheries and habitats to generate export earnings and public revenue from fishing license fees for the country; and to support livelihoods, food security and improve diets. For ocean fisheries, PROP supports work to strengthen the capacity of national and regional fisheries authorities to optimize production and ensure national authorities can gain and maintain access to high value export markets, such as the European Union. PROP also supports work to ensure fish entering the markets are safe and legally caught. This includes work to upskill staff and fund infrastructure for monitoring, control and surveillance of commercial fishing vessels, to ensure their adherence to regulations and fishing license conditions. For coastal fisheries, PROP support includes giving communities the skills to manage coastal fisheries, diversify their income streams, and help get sustainable coastal fish products to regional markets.

The fisheries sector in the  Caribbean  is a major source of livelihoods and contributes significantly to food security in the region as well as the tourism sector, which many islands depend on. Rapid recovery of the fisheries sector after a disaster is critical for the food security of many communities in the Caribbean. The fishing industry now can count on a parametric insurance product developed specifically for the fisherfolk in the Caribbean by the  Caribbean Oceans and Aquaculture Sustainability Facility (COAST).  COAST was launched in two countries: Grenada and Saint Lucia. With financial support from the U.S. Department of State and the World Bank, the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF SPC), and the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) have developed this first ever parametric insurance for the fisheries sector, which is designed to enhance resilience against the impacts of climate-related disasters. This helps build a stronger foundation for the blue economy while supporting the livelihoods of those who depend on this valuable marine natural capital.

Building the foundation for the Blue Economy in the Eastern Caribbean, the Bank approved the  Caribbean Regional Oceanscape Project (CROP)  in 2017. Financed by GEF, the project strengthened the capacity for ocean governance and coastal and marine geospatial planning in five countries of the Eastern Caribbean: Dominica, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. More specifically, the project  helped strengthen ocean governance through: (a) development of coastal and marine spatial plans and associated training, (b) development of national and regional ocean strategies and policies, (c) strengthening knowledge and capacity of public, private, and civil society sectors by expanding access to ocean data and ocean education with innovative tools for decision making, and (d) supporting an investor roundtable to forge new partnerships and raise interest in investing in countries’ transition to a blue economy. The project produced an impressive array of ocean education materials and ocean data to support decision making in the region. Thanks to CROP, a new US$60 million series of projects “Unleashing the Blue Economy of the Caribbean (UBEC)”, financed by IDA and PROBLUE, has been designed to advance the Blue Economy agenda across the region.

Lastly, an example from Europe where, in  Romania , the  Integrated Nutrient Pollution Control Project (INPCP)  supports meeting the EU Nitrates Directive requirements by reducing nutrient discharges to water bodies, promoting behavioral change at the communal/regional level, and strengthening institutional and regulatory capacity. 

Environment

• Show More +
• BRIEF: Strengthening Capacity on Ocean Governance
• Blue Economy for Resilient Africa Program
• Where Is the Value in the Chain? Pathways out of Plastic Pollution
• CFI-CF: Solutions to Overfishing
• Show Less -

PROBLUE: Healthy Ocean - Healthy Economies - Healthy Communities

This site uses cookies to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. If you continue to navigate this website beyond this page, cookies will be placed on your browser. To learn more about cookies, click here .