Following its global emergence, the blue economy agenda is now touted as a mechanism through which the Republic of Namibia can achieve long-term sustainable and equitable growth. In (re)defining the ocean, seabed mining has been central to these discussions. Drawing on fieldwork and semi-structured interviews undertaken with key actors in Namibia and South Africa, between 2016 and 2017, as well as recent policy debates and discourse surrounding the potential extraction of marine phosphate in Namibia this article critically examines the framing of the marine environment as an extractive space. The blue economy presents opportunities for new forms of capitalist accumulation and this has resulted in struggles over who can accumulate in the marine sphere. This article therefore analyses the emerging and competing claims to sovereignty over this "new" resource frontier, including by state and non-state actors, and identifies which actors have been included or excluded from the blue economy agenda. In discussing sovereignty over this frontier and resources therein, it undertakes a rigorous analysis of the complications created by the ocean as a three-dimensional, voluminous, "borderless" space.Key Words: Namibia, seabed mining, sovereignty, frontier, blue economy, EEZ
Globally there has been recognition that there is little consensus attributed to the definition of the blue economy. However, despite this acknowledgement, the blue economy is championed for its development potential by the African Union and subsequently, several African states. Having formalised the agenda in its fifth National Development Plan Namibia is working to implement a governance and management framework to "sustainably maximise benefits from marine resources" by 2020 (Republic of Namibia in Namibia's 5th National Development Plan (NDP5) 2017). Concurrently, new entrants, such as marine mineral mining projects, have emerged in recognition of the potential offered within the state's Exclusive Economic Zone. This article argues that the uptake of the blue economy is shaped by multiple, and often conflicting, interests. The emergence of the agenda is not apolitical, nor has it been established in isolation from exogenous actors and interests. Subsequently, this article suggests that the critique of the emerging blue economy should be applied to discussions of a blue degrowth movement, to avoid transposing a new agenda over another. As demonstrated with reference to Namibia, contextual and historical issues need to be recognised by degrowth discussions, and their inherent and continued structural effects analysed. This is of particular importance when considering whose voices are represented or excluded by such agendas, complicated by the (geo)physical characteristics of the marine sphere.
The perceived neglect of the ocean to state and industry actors has seen frontier rhetoric emerge as it is rendered visible under the Blue Economy agenda. By framing the marine scape as underutilised, capitalist expansion is being legitimised. Drawing on the case of Namibia, I argue that the afterlives of colonialism and apartheid are being repurposed to present the ocean as a Blue Economy opportunity. The physical disconnection of citizens from the marine scape, and the dominance of fishing and mining industries, has been used by state and development actors to present it as empty of socio‐cultural relations. However, to declare Namibia’s coasts and ocean as forgotten unless articulated through capital is to conceal that they have been labelled “no‐go” zones. I argue that, by considering exclusions and looking beyond proximity in discussions of equity and representation, the marine scape is articulated by civil society, to elucidate forms of resistance.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.