Ocean and coastal resources are integral to sustaining life on Earth. Oceans cover 71 percent of our planet’s surface, contain 97 percent of its water, are home to over 90 percent of its species, and produce more than 60 percent of all oxygen (Cousteau, Cousteau, and Kraynak 2021). Oceans play a crucial role in climate regulation, and coastal resources, such as mangroves, sequester significant amounts of carbon. Acre by acre, mangroves store up to four times more carbon than terrestrial forests (Donato et al. 2011). Coastal resources also buffer hazards caused by natural disasters.

Oceans and coastal resources are vital for inclusive growth, jobs, and food and nutrition security. The value of marine and coastal resources and associated industries is estimated to be between 3 and 5 percent of global GDP (Patil et al. 2016). A total of 500 million people depend on small-scale fisheries for their welfare, mainly in developing countries (FAO, Duke University, and WorldFish 2023). In the least-developed countries, seafood is the primary protein source for over 50 percent of people and an important social safety net (FAO 2022). For small island developing states (SIDS), the exclusive economic zone—the area of ocean under their control—is, on average, 28 times the land mass. Thus, the economies of many SIDS are dependent on ocean and coastal resources. In these states especially, tourism (80 percent of which is coastal and marine) is a critical source of income and jobs.

However, ocean and coastal resources are in a state of emergency as a result of governance and management failures, which are compounded by low institutional capacity. Policies governing ocean and coastal resources are often fragmented, characterized by legal and regulatory gaps and overlapping institutional mandates. As a result, oceans and coastal areas have been treated as limitless resources and largely cost-free repositories of waste (World Bank and UN DESA 2017). Poorly regulated coastal development has resulted in the destruction of one million hectares of mangroves since 1990 (FAO 2020a; Merzdorf 2020). Some 34 percent of global fish stocks have been overfished, and 11 million tons of plastic waste and harmful agricultural and industrial chemicals enter oceans annually (UNEP 2018). Delayed climate action is further threatening these resources.

The Blue Economy

International actors have proposed using a blue economy approach to address ocean and coastal governance failures. The blue economy concept was introduced at the 2012 Rio+20: The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development by coastal countries that wanted to draw attention to the negative effects of unmitigated economic growth on ocean and coastal areas and the lack of focus on this issue in international forums. Although there is no single definition of the blue economy, international actors have coalesced around the need to achieve healthy ocean and coastal resources to ensure life-sustaining ecosystem services that underpin inclusive and equitable economic growth and the achievement of social welfare benefits (including food and nutrition security). The blue economy implies a shift from sector-led to integrated approaches requiring sector collaboration to identify synergies to manage trade-offs among different resource user groups and development aims. The blue economy also supports the achievement of climate change, biodiversity, and circular economy aims.

Evaluation Purpose, Questions, Scope, and Methods

The World Bank adopted a blue economy approach in 2016. Although the World Bank has historically supported marine and coastal development, it put forth a definition for the blue economy for the first time in 2016. It defined the blue economy as the “sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods, and job creation while preserving the health of ocean ecosystems” (World Bank 2017e). Since then, the World Bank has produced blue economy advisory and analytics, housed a multidonor PROBLUE trust fund, and changed the name of its Environment and Natural Resources Global Practice to Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy.

The overarching evaluation question is, How well is the World Bank supporting a blue economy approach to achieve sustainable and inclusive development of ocean and coastal states? We answer the overarching question by addressing two subquestions: (i) How well is the World Bank articulating blue economy aims, including in relation to other actors? and (ii) How well is the World Bank operationalizing blue economy aims? Because the blue economy is a relatively new concept, management requested and the Independent Evaluation Group agreed to conduct a forward-looking evaluation—that is, an evaluation that aims to help surface early implementation lessons to inform the future development of the World Bank’s blue economy approach.

The evaluation scope consists of three parameters: geographic considerations, types of activities, and timing. The evaluation scope covers 109 countries with a coastline or any form of ocean access, including activities in their exclusive economic zones (within 200 nautical miles of their shoreline) but not activities in international waters where the World Bank has had any analytic or lending activities engaged (see appendix B for the country list). These 109 countries include 32 SIDS and 77 coastal countries. For these countries, we cover all Systematic Country Diagnostics (SCDs), Country Economic Memorandums, and Country Climate and Development Reports (CCDRs). We also cover all World Bank–published focused blue economy analytics at the global, regional, and country levels. The evaluation scope also includes four established sectors critical for the blue economy: (i) small-scale fisheries, (ii) plastics and marine pollution, (iii) marine and coastal tourism, and (iv) maritime transport infrastructure. For these sectors, we cover all projects (advisory services and analytics and lending) approved between 2016 and 2023. The overall evaluation covers 2012–23 but mainly focuses on 2016–23, after the World Bank’s adoption of a blue economy approach. This is a World Bank–only evaluation (it excludes the International Finance Corporation and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency).

The evaluation used a triangulated set of methods to answer the evaluation questions. To assess how well the World Bank has articulated the blue economy, in relation to other actors, we undertook a focused literature review, content analysis of World Bank blue economy–focused analytics and key partner publications, and global expert interviews and used content analysis to assess the presence and level of integration of the blue economy concept in World Bank country diagnostics for countries in scope. To assess how well the World Bank is operationalizing the blue economy at the country and regional levels, we conducted case studies in 9 out of 19 countries that have (i) an ongoing national blue economy process (strategy, policy, or institutional development) and (ii) World Bank operational support focused on the blue economy that was mature enough to evaluate. The nine cases are Bangladesh, Belize, Cabo Verde, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Morocco, the Seychelles, and St. Lucia (Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States [OECS]); an expanded validation review was also conducted for the Pacific Islands. To assess how well the World Bank is operationalizing the blue economy at the sector level, we used portfolio review and analyses and key informant interviews. We also examined the role of the PROBLUE multidonor trust fund—the fund established in the World Bank to support the blue economy—as part of the sector analyses.

Articulation of the Blue Economy

As a knowledge broker, the World Bank helped lift a progressive blue economy concept out of country workshops and onto the world stage, heightening its credibility through blue economy–focused analytics, often financed by bilateral partners. These analytics, mostly regional in nature, focused on the potential of the blue economy to achieve balanced economic, environmental, and social development aims in coastal and marine areas.

However, the World Bank’s corporate definition of the blue economy falls short of articulating key tenets of the blue economy as expressed in its analytics. By corporate definition, we refer to the definition that can be found on the World Bank web page labeled “What Is the Blue Economy?” and on the PROBLUE homepage. The World Bank’s corporate definition leaves out core tenets of the blue economy concept; these are more clearly and comprehensively articulated in the World Bank’s own blue economy analytics (including Riding the Blue Wave, World Bank 2021d) and in the evolving concept put forth by key partners. Although the World Bank’s corporate definition references three pillars (growth, livelihoods, and ocean health), the definition’s focus on economic growth while preserving the health of the oceans suggests that the oceans are in a state of existing good health. The definition lacks references to the restorative potential of the blue economy, including efforts to regenerate, restore, and conserve resources. The definition also lacks references to inclusion and equity, does not refer to integrated approaches, and appears decoupled from pressing food and nutrition security, climate change, biodiversity, and circular economy goals. Alongside the definition, the World Bank put forth a schematic and guidance note referred to as the Blue Economy Development Framework, which also exhibits the same limitations as the definition and is largely unfamiliar to and unused by both clients and partners.

The World Bank’s corporate definition of the blue economy is also increasingly unaligned with the way key partners are evolving and articulating their understanding of the blue economy. International actors that work to achieve blue economy aims alongside the World Bank have increasingly clarified that the sustainable blue economy concept converges around the need for a more balanced approach, reconciling economic growth with environmental stewardship and social equity. In the case of the European Union, for example, this clarification represents a sea change compared with the previous definition that was focused on growth.

Clearly articulating the holistic purpose of the blue economy is important because clients are using the World Bank’s corporate definition to inform their own blue economy strategies, and key partners rely on the World Bank to communicate the more holistic aim. As identified in the case studies, clients are using the World Bank’s corporate definition to inform their own blue economy strategies. However, the case studies showed that these strategies are better at articulating blue growth aims than at articulating how triple-bottom-line objectives will be achieved across relevant ministries. The global expert interviews also indicated that many international, regional, and bilateral development agencies supporting clients with their blue economy development look to the World Bank to communicate holistic blue economy aims as part of their economic dialogue with clients. However, apart from a few key staff, the evaluation found that there is low understanding among World Bank staff interviewed of the more holistic meaning of the blue economy.

Integration into Country Diagnostics

The blue economy is being referenced in many SIDS country diagnostics, and it is slowly emerging in those for coastal states. Two-thirds of SIDS SCDs refer to the blue economy, which is logical because the concept is derived from the SIDS experience. The concept began to emerge in coastal state SCDs in 2020. Since then, 15 percent of the 72 coastal state SCDs have referred to the blue economy even though all SCDs reference at least one marine sector. It is also worth noting that the blue economy has been included in just five Country Economic Memorandums, four of which cover SIDS.

Although SCDs are beginning to reference the blue economy, comprehensiveness of the concept is low overall, and this limits decision makers’ abilities to use the blue economy as a policy framing tool for the sustainable development of coastal and marine areas. Only 5 out of 18 SCDs that refer to the blue economy (OECS, the Seychelles, São Tomé and Príncipe, Kenya, and Mauritius) articulated well the need to reconcile economic, environmental, and social aims through sectoral coordination and planning in ways that identify synergies and address social trade-offs (with the OECS SCD being a best-case example). The remaining SCDs (13 out of 18) refer to the blue economy but continue to address sector issues in silos. Although emerging blue economy opportunities (for example, offshore energy) are cited, there is neither a discussion of sectoral coordination nor an analysis of how to address trade-offs, especially between growth and environmental sustainability. The absence of a discussion of trade-offs was most notable in SIDS that refer to the blue economy or multiple marine sectors as a source of comparative advantage (for example, fisheries, aquaculture, and tourism) without considering the negative impacts on other sectors (for example, impacts of rapid tourism development on fisheries through increased pollution and land use change or the negative impacts aquaculture facilities can have on coastal tourism).

Few CCDRs articulate how a blue economy approach can support national climate change and development goals. A total of 7 out of 23 CCDRs in scope refer to the blue economy, and 4 articulate clear links between marine activities and climate action (Ghana is a best practice example); 3 of the CCDRs that do not refer to the blue economy cover the countries for which this topic is a key government priority (Indonesia, Morocco, and South Africa), and another 2 cover the countries where the blue economy is used to set priorities in the SCD. Apart from Indonesia, no CCDRs discuss the potential of blue carbon toward achieving nationally determined commitments.

CCDRs only partially identify risks posed by climate change to marine and coastal areas, and there is scant reference to how emerging sectors will affect the marine environment. A total of 74 percent of CCDRs identified at least one marine sector at risk from climate change. Risks posed to fisheries and coastal development were cited in half of the CCDRs, but there were few references to and no robust analyses of the effects of climate change on other sectors, such as ports and shipping. There is scant reference to how some infrastructure sectors—proposed as part of countries’ mitigation or adaptation strategies, such as offshore renewables or desalination plants—will affect the marine environment.

The evolution reshapes the World Bank’s vision and mission to include a “livable planet” but omits references to marine ecosystems. As per the September 2023 Development Committee paper, the newly launched Global Challenge Program on Forests for Development, Climate, and Biodiversity does not refer to the blue economy, and actions on biodiversity and nature do not refer to coastal or ocean resources (World Bank 2023a). This reflects a limited interpretation of a “livable planet,” restricted to terrestrial environments, which overlooks the significant role of marine ecosystems in global ecological and economic systems.

Operationalizing the Blue Economy

The World Bank led a very effective effort to support blue economy policy and institutional development in the Eastern Caribbean. The World Bank relevantly used a governance approach in the Eastern Caribbean to help harmonize and develop blue economy policies and practices through regional analytics and the Caribbean Regional Oceanscape Project. This approach was in line with the World Bank’s global blue economy analytics that cite the need for the World Bank to identify and address governance and institutional issues required to achieve blue economy aims (Patil et al. 2016; World Bank 2021d). As articulated by the World Bank, and as agreed to by regional clients, the World Bank’s focus on governance and data-driven decision-making in the Eastern Caribbean was a model to emulate in building the blue economy.

Elsewhere, the World Bank is mainly using sector entry points to address marine and coastal development challenges that are achieving sector results but that are not yet being leveraged to support more effective blue economy development. The governments of all nine case study countries are just beginning to establish coherent policy, strategy, and institutional mechanisms for effective blue economy development. World Bank operations in these countries are achieving sector results but are not yet being leveraged to seek out opportunities for sector synergies that maximize benefits and address trade-offs, and most are not supporting blue economy policy or institutional development (with few exceptions, such as in the OECS and Morocco). Addressing blue economy policy and institutional gaps is critical for achieving sustainable sector results. For example, in the absence of a blue economy approach, effective conservation efforts will be undermined by unsustainable tourism practices. Increased and diversified coastal and marine tourism will be negatively affected by inadequate waste management.

There have also been critical gaps between the launch of influential blue economy analytics and operational support that have hindered blue economy development. Across all the case study countries, World Bank analytic work on the blue economy, funded by PROBLUE or other trust funds, is well regarded by clients and has often helped shape the blue economy narrative. However, progress in taking forward this diagnostic and analytic work in blue economy policies and strategies either has stalled or has not been reinforced after initial engagements are completed. Maintaining country engagement is important since the blue economy approach requires a strong shift in practices and mentalities and often involves policy and institutional reforms that can face resistance. Engagement challenges are associated with the limited number of staff with blue economy expertise, staff rotations, and Country Management Unit buy-in for the concept.

The World Bank is also insufficiently leveraging its country experience with integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) to support inclusive blue economy development. A sustainable blue economy calls for a strategic, integrated, and participatory approach to planning and managing coastal and marine areas. The World Bank was an early adopter of ICZM, a bottom-up, iterative governance approach to coastal development. In all projects, ICZM improved coastal management by resolving policy and institutional and jurisdictional issues and achieved environmental and social benefits. However, the World Bank has not updated its ICZM guidance in 30 years and is not connecting this approach to wider marine spatial planning or top-down marine and coastal investment.

Although the World Bank has helped strengthen sector platforms at the regional level, these efforts have yet to use a blue economy lens to promote coordination and coherence between sectors, including in areas such as fisheries, coastal resilience, marine plastic pollution, and so on. There have also been missed opportunities, for example within the African Union, to support regional bodies developing blue economy strategies. The landscape of regional organizations influencing the blue economy is complex. Influenced by regional political dynamics, these organizations include economic unions, fisheries management organizations, and ocean governance bodies that offer various blue economy entry points. In cases where the World Bank partners with regional organizations influential to the blue economy, its support has sometimes been out of step with the organizations’ capacities and mandates.

The World Bank has integrated blue economy considerations in key sector analytics. It has put forth progressive global fisheries management guidance and a blue tourism report, and its marine plastics analytics and estimation models are being used to tackle plastic pollution globally, with support from the PROBLUE trust fund. It has also supported analytics on decarbonization in shipping and the greening of ports in the marine transport infrastructure sector.

Small-scale fisheries projects are increasingly being designed in line with progressive global fisheries guidance, which is capable of achieving blue economy aims. The World Bank’s 2021 Fisheries Sector Assessment Toolkit includes social, ecological, and economic criteria that have the potential to improve the treatment of resource sustainability and social protection, alongside economic development, in operations. These principles are reflected in the analytic support to Myanmar (2020–21), where the World Bank made a business case for improved fisheries governance and management as a means of fostering sustainable and inclusive growth. Projects in Peru (2017–23), Bangladesh (2019–present), Liberia (2022–present), Indonesia (2023–present), the Philippines (2023–present), and Senegal (2023–present) provide additional examples of fisheries projects that are transforming to include a blue economy focus or that better align with blue economy principles. In Madagascar (2017–24), social protection features strongly as a means of offsetting overfishing challenges.

Consistent application of the World Bank’s Fisheries Sector Assessment Toolkit could promote more holistic treatment of sector issues and equal consideration of social, ecological, and economic outcomes in the ongoing and future portfolio. There are some concomitantly approved small-scale fisheries and aquaculture projects that are not well aligned with more holistic blue economy aims. In Sri Lanka (2020–21), fisheries analytics were focused on increased production in a sector where resource sustainability is a concern (IOTC 2022). Investments in Kiribati (2018–19), India (2022–present), and Grenada and St. Vincent and the Grenadines (2017–present) that support fisheries and aquaculture expansion do not articulate how they will address overfishing and resource scarcity.

Consistent application of the World Bank’s Fisheries Sector Assessment Toolkit can also support enhanced considerations of climate change. Climate change risks are discussed in all Project Appraisal Documents, but explicit climate resilience measures featured in only 40 percent of them.

Assumptions about fisher behavior are not being fully tested as part of an inclusive blue economy approach. Three-quarters of projects that include fishing communities seek to provide livelihood assistance to members of those communities. Project theories are not clear as to whether this assistance is a household resilience-building strategy or a job substitution strategy, and this has affected the efficacy of projects’ livelihood components because the project evidence shows that small grant programs alone are incapable of supporting such transitions (for example, moving fishing communities out of fishing and into marine tourism or agriculture). Projects are also not testing assumptions about the impact that such livelihood support will have on reducing pressure on marine and coastal resources.

Plastics and Marine Pollution

The World Bank was an early actor in tackling marine plastic pollution: its global plastics analytics and estimation models are being used by governments worldwide to estimate the costs, revenues, and impacts of new plastics policies. These models are filling an important gap because very few similar open-access tools exist for national-level exploration of plastics policy options and show positive signs of early uptake.

The World Bank has provided a considerable amount of development policy support to combat the marine plastics issue in SIDS, but it has yet to do so for coastal nations that rank as major contributors to plastic waste production. The World Banks’s plastics and pollution agenda analytics could better clarify its links to achieving a just climate change transition.

Marine and Coastal Tourism

The World Bank’s 2022 blue tourism paper represents a shift away from its prior tourism theory of change that focused mostly on competitiveness and diversification toward one that embraces economically viable and environmentally and socially sustainable approaches (World Bank 2022a). Tourism engagements that adopt a blue economy approach can help mobilize financing, knowledge, and technical assistance to implement integrated development strategies that build resilience, address climate change, reduce pollution, support ecosystem regeneration and biodiversity conservation, and invest in local jobs and communities (Northrop et al. 2022).

Blue economy principles are only just emerging in marine tourism operations. The World Bank’s core coastal and marine tourism portfolio has contributed and continues to contribute to local economic development and jobs, but, with few exceptions, it pays insufficient attention to upstream environmental issues, including water use and waste. Since the World Bank published its blue tourism paper in 2022 (World Bank 2022a), newly approved projects would be expected to incorporate more holistic principles into their design.

Maritime Transport Infrastructure

Aspects of the blue economy in the marine transport space—such as decarbonization and greening of ports—are being incorporated into operations, but uptake overall is low. With the support of PROBLUE, the World Bank has developed analytics on the decarbonization of shipping and the greening of ports, which are being incorporated in to operations in the Africa and Pacific regions.

The PROBLUE multidonor trust fund occupies a unique and potentially transformative role in financing blue economy development, but there is room to enhance its strategic relevance and impact. The PROBLUE multidonor trust fund has been instrumental in helping the World Bank finance blue economy analyses lodged within advisory and operations. Blue economy analytics have been critical for articulating the blue economy in country diagnostics. PROBLUE played an important role in knowledge creation and awareness raising for marine plastics; it has also increased its finance for other themes that are critical for blue economy development. PROBLUE funds have only infrequently been used to help integrate blue economy principles into investment operations in other key sectors such as tourism and transport, however. PROBLUE is proactively supporting gender integration through analytics and through specific criteria lodged within their grant proposals, but World Bank operations in the blue economy space require the attention of gender specialists to ensure that gender-disaggregated results are achieved.

Recommendations

These findings draw forth the following recommendations:

• At a corporate level, the World Bank should articulate its commitment to helping clients achieve the more holistic meaning of the blue economy, including by updating its corporate definition and ensuring that the concept is consistently articulated in relevant country engagements. An update of the corporate definition would include acknowledging the restorative potential of the blue economy, inclusion, equity, and the need for integrated approaches, and clarify links to pressing food and nutrition security, climate change, biodiversity, and circular economy goals. It would also require the World Bank to ensure that relevant management and staff working in coastal and marine areas can understand, own, and consistently articulate the merits of the blue economy agenda to clients in country-facing engagements.
• The World Bank should proactively support a holistic blue economy approach in coastal and marine areas. World Bank management should ensure that blue economy diagnostics are used to inform key country diagnostics and country strategies, where relevant. Country Management Units should ensure coherence across sector operations implemented in coastal and marine areas to help clients maximize the restorative and inclusive development potential of the blue economy and to help manage trade-offs. Global Practices should ensure that projects implemented in coastal and marine areas are designed and implemented in line with progressive blue economy guidance. Both should aim to situate these portfolios of projects within wider participatory spatial planning processes to ensure equitable and sustainable development outcomes.
• The World Bank should work more effectively with partners engaged in the blue economy space to help clients develop needed policy and institutional reforms to achieve blue economy aims. This entails the collective identification and the addressing of policy and institutional gaps that currently undermine blue economy development through effective partnering with regional organizations, multilateral development banks, and bilateral agencies. Suitable policy reform will be especially important in the face of emerging industries (for example, offshore renewables and deep-sea mining) and new technologies in the blue economy space.