Shades of blue: what do competing interpretations of the Blue Economy mean for oceans governance?

The blue economy: Identifying geographic concepts and sensitivities

“…Doloreux provides an overview of how three perspectives define a maritime cluster: Maritime cluster as an industrial complex based on inter‐industry transactions and connections through flows of goods and services. Maritime cluster as an agglomeration of interlinked industries based on terms of knowledge, skills, inputs, demand, etc. Maritime cluster as a community‐based network centred on institution networks supporting the development of industry in certain geographical concentrations. Doloreux () views maritime clusters as institutional and economic structures focused on collaboration among different actors related to maritime industries and sea‐related activities. Other analyses of the BE from Silver et al () and Voyer et al () recognise the different actors attempting to define the BE in ways that prioritise certain ocean problems, solutions, and participants over others. Their understandings of the competing discourses that arise from differences in prioritisation articulate the BE as alternatively framing oceans as natural capital, oceans as livelihoods, oceans as good business, and/or oceans as a driver for innovation (Silver et al, ; Voyer et al, ).…”

“…Critical geographers who have recognised this define the BE as being strikingly similar to the green economy in the sense that a land‐grabbing, complex governmental project aimed at controlling the ocean and its resources is being disguised by a promise of “collective prosperity” (Brewer, , p. 45). The EU's BE practices, for example, demonstrate and justify ocean governance and maritime security, therefore making it a driver for BE development and growth (Voyer et al, ). However, their narratives of ocean governance and maritime security still consist of placeful and placeless representations (Germond & Germond‐Duret, ), and this can misconstrue proper and effective sustainable ocean management.…”

“…Variations also occur in the ways in which industries relate with coastal and water environments. For example, the oil and gas sector is often included as part of the BE industries (Voyer et al, ). In the North American Great Lakes region, the activities associated with oil and gas are primarily related to the transportation of such resources (via pipeline and train), or to the refining process (Graziano, Gunther, & Lema, ).…”

“…Understanding the geographical underpinnings of the BE are urgently required to enable characterisation of spatial dimensions, especially in terms of developing an understanding of uneven development when considering the link between innovation in the BE (e.g., energy production innovations such as tidal or offshore wind power) and its impact on uneven development (Kerr et al, ; Morrissey & Heidkamp, ). Perspectives that are economically important, politically central, socially relevant, and environmentally sensitive are currently being omitted in the existing BE discourses (e.g., Doloreux, ; Silver et al, ; Voyer et al, ).…”

“…Despite the term BE becoming common parlance over the last decade, there is still no generally accepted definition, and recent studies focused on the BE have taken differing approaches. Silver, Gray, Campbell, Fairbanks, and Gruby (2015) focus on emerging discourses around the term BE; Doloreux (2017) takes a more practical view, considering real-world blue economies through a survey of maritime clusters as a response to economic competitiveness, while Voyer, Quirk, McIlgrom, and Azmi (2018) classify the BE into four differing interpretations (oceans as natural capital, oceans as livelihoods, oceans as good business, and oceans as a driver for innovation) and analyse how these relate to ocean governance. Attempts to engage with the BE may be understood and applied in various ways as a result of differing stakeholder interests and objectives, resulting in contests related to meaning and applicability (Amsler, 2009).…”