Keywords

1 Introduction

The notion of the ‘blue economy’ was launched at the Rio +20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD), held in Rio de Janeiro, June 20–22, 2012—an exceptional illustration of successful ocean diplomacy by the small island developing states (SIDS). The initiative has socio-economic, political and cultural relevance to all coastal states and countries with vested interests in waters beyond the exclusive economic zones (EEZs). The concept signifies the integration of traditional ocean industries (for instance, fisheries, marine tourism, maritime transport and security, oil and gas, etc.) and emerging activities, such as offshore renewable energy, aquaculture, seabed extractive activities and marine biotechnology and bioprospecting to ensure sustainable management of ocean wealth (Techera 2018; WB and UNDESA 2017). The operational definition of the ‘blue economy’ has not been widely agreed upon as yet (WB and UNDESA 2017) and it is rational to think that the concept will evolve in the future with progress in technology.

The socio-economic importance of oceans and seas is also reflected in the 2016 report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Based on a ‘business-as-usual’ model, the ocean economy contribution to global value added is predicted to increase from USD 1.5 trillion in 2010 to over USD 3 trillion in 2030 (OECD 2016). In 2030, strong growth is predicted to occur in marine aquaculture, offshore wind energy, fish processing and shipbuilding and repair sectors rather than the offshore oil and gas sectors that were dominant (accounted for one-third of the total contribution) in 2010 (OECD 2016). In 2010, the global ocean economy accounted for about 31 million direct full-time jobs and industrial capture fisheries was the largest employer followed by the maritime and coastal tourism sector. Under the ‘business-as-usual’ model, ocean industries are predicted to create approximately 40 million full-time jobs by 2030 and offshore wind energy, marine aquaculture, fish processing and port activities are expected to take the lead (OECD 2016).

The ‘blue growth’ initiative launched by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) is nested in the ‘blue economy’ initiative and is particularly aimed at the long-term sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture (FAO 2017). While both initiatives are aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and envisioned for ocean-based economic growth that is environmentally sustainable, socially inclusive and equitable (FAO 2017), a balance between the conflicting objectives of environmental sustainability and economic development needs to be maintained (Al-Masroori and Bose 2011).

Fisheries and aquaculture—an important sector of the ocean economy- provides significant benefits to human welfare by supporting food and nutritional security as well as the livelihood of millions of people around the world (FAO 2020; Kelleher et al. 2012). According to the 2020 report by the FAO, in 2018 about 59.51 million people were engaged in the primary sector of fisheries and aquaculture, of which about 38.98 million and 20.53 million people were engaged in capture fisheries and aquaculture, respectively. The highest proportion of primary sector workers were found in Asia (85 per cent), followed by Africa (9 per cent), the Americas (4 per cent) and Europe and Oceania (1 per cent each). In 2018, women made up 14 per cent of the total fishers and fish farmers (FAO 2020). Furthermore, with regard to capture fisheries and aquaculture production, many of the top performing countries in the world belong to the east, south and southeast regions (hereafter, labelled as sub-regions) of Asia (FAO 2020).

Therefore, to combat poverty, enhance food and nutrition security and strengthen economies of Asia, particularly the above-mentioned sub-regions, harnessing the economic potential of fisheries and aquaculture in a sustainable manner is crucial. To ensure the flow of socio-economic benefits from coastal and marine living resources to local, regional and global communities, sustainable use of such resources must be affirmed (FAO 2020). Otherwise, the supporting function of fisheries and aquaculture in providing food and nutritional security and livelihoods to millions of people in the region would be at stake. The problem will be more acute with the rise in global population that is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050 (WB 2013). This concern has raised awareness among local and regional actors. From a regional perspective, the following initiatives, among others, affirm such change: (a) the commencement of a four-year (2015–2018) project on blue economy measurement for Southeast Asian economies by the Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA) in mid-2015 (McIlgorm 2016), (b) the adoption of the ‘Blue Economy Declaration’ at the first Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) Ministerial Blue Economy Conference in 2015 that aimed at harnessing oceans and maritime resources to drive economic growth, job creation and innovation without undermining the long-term sustainability of natural resources and the protection of ocean environments (Bose 2021), (c) the Action Plan for ‘Healthy Oceans and Sustainable Blue Economies’ launched by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in May 2019 to scale up investments and technical assistance to $5 billion over 5 years (ADB 2019).

With particular attention to the aforementioned sub-regions of Asia, the main objectives of the present chapter are threefold. First, to describe the current outlook, socio-economic contributions and untapped potential of the fisheries and aquaculture sector in the sub-regions. Second, to provide a brief account of both internal and external challenges for the fisheries and aquaculture sector in the sub-regions that inhibit progress towards the sustainable management of the sector and its transition to the ‘blue economy.’ Third, to suggest the way forward to effectively manage the transition of the regional fisheries and aquaculture to the ‘blue economy.’

2 The Current Outlook and Potentials of Fisheries and Aquaculture in the Region

As the world’s largest contributor to capture fisheries and aquaculture production, Asia plays a vital role in both regional and global food and nutritional security (FAO 2020). From the sub-region’s perspective, the significant contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to the sub-region’s food and nutritional security, foreign exchange earnings and job creation has been emphasised in various studies (Pomeroy et al. 2019; Pomeroy 2012; Abdullah and Kuperan 1997).

Table 7.1 presents the contribution of fisheries and aquaculture of Asia and the top performing countries belonging to east, south and southeast regions covering the period 2000–2018. The results show that during 2000–2018, Asia and the top producers from the sub-regions of Asia accounted for, on average, about 51.1 per cent (with an average growth rate of 0.55 per cent and 48.8 per cent (with an average growth rate of 0.47 per cent) of the world total capture (inland and marine) production of fish by quantity, respectively. In 2018, three of the East Asian countries (China, Japan and South Korea), six of the Southeast Asian countries (Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Myanmar, Thailand and Malaysia), and two of the South Asian countries (India and Bangladesh) were in the world’s top 25 capture fisheries countries by quantity (FAO 2020).

Table 7.1 Fisheries and aquaculture production (Live weight): 2000–2018
Full size table

The same pattern was also observed in global aquaculture production of fish. During the same period, Asia accounted for on average about 88.4 per cent (with an average growth rate of 0.07 per cent) and 80.7 per cent (with an average growth rate of 0.31 per cent) of the world total aquaculture production of fish by quantity and value, respectively. The top producers from the subregions of Asia accounted for on average about 87.0 per cent (with an average growth rate of 0.02 per cent) and 78.9 per cent in value (with an average growth rate of 0.30 per cent) of the world total aquaculture production of fish by quantity and value, respectively.

In 2018, four of the East Asian countries (China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan), seven of the Southeast Asian countries (Indonesia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia and Cambodia) and two of the South Asian countries (India, Bangladesh) were in the world top 25 aquaculture producers who produced more than 160,000 tonnes (FAO 2020). In the same year, five of the East Asian countries (China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea and Taiwan), six of the Southeast Asian countries (Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia and Myanmar) and one of the South Asian countries (India) were in the world’s top 25 producers of aquatic plants by quantity (FAO 2020). Overall, the current situation indicates that the decline of marine capture gives rise to the development of aquaculture – a substitute to common-property- in the region.

Table 7.2 presents the marine and inland contribution of fisheries and aquaculture in the world and in Asia covering the period 2000–2018. The results indicate that the share of inland waters in the total global capture production increased from 9.2 per cent in 2000 to 12.5 per cent in 2018 (with an average growth rate of 1.71 per cent), while the share of marine captures declined from 90.8 per cent to 87.5 per cent (with an average growth rate of −0.20 per cent). Similar trends were also observed in the case of Asia. The share of inland waters in the total Asian captures increased from 12.5 per cent in 2000 to 16.0 per cent in 2018 (with an average growth rate of 1.39 per cent), while the share of marine captures declined from 87.5 per cent to 84.0 per cent (with an average growth rate of −0.23 per cent).

Table 7.2 Marine versus inland fisheries and aquaculture production (Live weight): 2000–2018
Full size table

With regard to aquaculture, the share of marine waters in the total global production increased from 57.7 per cent in 2000 to 62.5 per cent in 2018 (with an average growth rate of 0.45 per cent), while the share of inland production declined from 42.3 per cent to 37.5 per cent (with an average growth rate of −0.68 per cent). In the global aquaculture production, the share of Asia’s marine waters increased from 86.7 per cent in 2000 to 87.0 per cent in 2018 with an average growth rate of 0.02 per cent, while the share of inland waters increased from 77.9 per cent in 2010 to 82.2 per cent in 2018 with an average growth rate of 0.30 per cent.

Similar to the global trend, the share of marine waters (inland waters) in the total Asian production increased (decreased) from 60.9 per cent (39.1 per cent) in 2000 to 65.5 per cent (34.5 per cent) in 2018 with an average growth rate of 0.40 per cent (−0.69 per cent). During 2000–2018, inland fisheries capture production (including aquaculture) in Asia was comparatively higher in quantity (on average about 86.4 per cent of the world total) than that of marine capture (on average about 56.0 per cent of the world total) and hence is crucial for their magnitude of socio-economic contributions in the region.

In Asia, the number of fishers and fish farmers increased from about 40.43 million people in 2000 to about 50.38 million people in 2018, an annual growth rate of about 1.28 per cent. In 2018, Asia accounted for the highest number of fish workers and farmers (about 78.9 per cent and 95.5 per cent in fisheries and aquaculture, respectively) of the world total for fisheries (about 38.98 million) and aquaculture (about 20.53 million) (FAO 2020).

Table 7.3 presents the total value of trade in fishery products for the period 2000–2018. The results suggest that during 2000–2018, Asia’s export (import) share in total value of world fish exports (imports) ranged from 34.9 per cent (39.6 per cent) in 2010 to 37.3 per cent (34.3 per cent) in 2018. Of which, the export (import) share of the top trading countries in the sub-regions ranged from 94.4 per cent (96.8 per cent) in 2010 to 94.0 per cent (91.3 per cent) in 2018. In the same period, the total value of world fish exports (imports) increased at an annual growth rate of 6.2 per cent (5.6 per cent). Over the same period, the total value of Asia’s fish exports (imports) increased at an annual growth rate of 6.6 per cent (4.7 per cent), while for the top trading countries in the sub-regions, the annual growth rate of exports (imports) was 6.6 per cent (4.4 per cent).

Table 7.3 Total value of trade in fishery commodities, by world, Asia and top sub-regional countries:2000–2018
Full size table

In 2018, about 66.3 million tonnes (live weight equivalent) of the total fishery and aquaculture production (about 178.5 million tonnes) was exported with a recorded value of about USD 165.4 billion and China, Vietnam and India were in the top four exporting countries (FAO 2020). In the same year, about 88 per cent (about 156.4 million tonnes) of the total fishery and aquaculture production (about 178.5 million tonnes) was used for direct human consumption and live and fresh forms accounted for about 44 per cent. The remaining 12 per cent (22 million tonnes) was utilised mainly for the production of fishmeal and fish oil (FAO 2020).

In 2017, global per capita consumption of fish was estimated at 20.3 kg, with fish accounting for about 17.3 per cent of the global population’s intake of animal proteins and 6.8 per cent of all proteins consumed. Preliminary estimates for 2018 indicate a further growth in per capita consumption to about 20.5 kg, of which aquaculture production in total available food fish supply was estimated at 10.8 kg compared to 9.7 kg of capture fisheries (FAO 2020).

In 2017, the per capita consumption of fish in Asia was estimated at 24.1 kg, with fish accounting for about 23.1 per cent of their average per capita intake of animal protein and 8.1 per cent of all proteins consumed. In the same year, the per capita consumption of fish in many Asian countries was higher than that of the world. The following countries (with per capita fish consumption) exemplify the point: Hong Kong (66.5 kg), Malaysia (57.8 kg), South Korea (57.2 kg), Myanmar (45.9 kg), Japan (45.8 kg), Indonesia (44.7 kg), Cambodia (42.7), China (38.8), Vietnam (37.7 kg), Sri Lanka (30.3), Taiwan (29.6 kg), Thailand (29.5), Philippines (26.2 kg), Bangladesh (26.0 kg) and Laos (25.3 kg) (FAO 2020).

Another important characteristic of the sub-region’s fisheries is the extent of small-scale fisheries (SSF) and their socio-economic contributions (Pomeroy 2012; Mills et al. 2011; Salayo et al. 2008). However, SSF’s contributions to livelihoods and food security are often undermined (Kelleher et al. 2012; Mills et al. 2011; Teh et al. 2011) and are likely to be overshadowed by the higher profile interest in ocean issues (Funge-Smith and Bennett 2019). Therefore, given the SSF’s extent and socio-economic contribution in the region (Kelleher et al. 2012), the likelihood of achieving the ‘blue economy’ goals increases with the adoption of a holistic approach by integrating SSF into the ‘blue economy’ agenda, changing the existing policy discourse in relation to SSF which is influenced by economic growth paradigms as pointed out by Béné et al. (2010) and providing effective leadership (Sutton and Rudd 2015).

Apart from providing products for direct consumption (e.g. food, harvested through commercial and recreational/sport fishing, medicines, cosmetics, pharmaceutical products, genetic materials, etc.), fisheries and aquaculture (including aquatic plants)—as part of the marine ecosystem—can also generate a wide range of economic benefits. These include: (a) productive use benefits (e.g. pearl industry), (b) non-consumptive benefits (marine tourism activities such as dolphin and turtle watching, snorkelling, diving, etc.), (c) socio-cultural benefits (e.g. aesthetic, artistic, educational, spiritual, religious and/or scientific values) and (d) non-use benefits (e.g. option benefits, existence benefits and bequest benefits).Footnote 1

The case of marine turtles can serve as an example of embracing all categories of values (Busaidi et al. 2019; de Vasconcellos Pegas and Stronza 2010; Campbell and Smith 2006; Troëng and Drews 2004; Tisdell and Wilson 2002). Troëng and Drews (2004) estimated the socio-economic value of marine turtle conservation involving nine developing countries (including three countries from the sub-regions) around the world and the estimated gross revenue of consumptive and non-consumptive use for each case study was on average USD 581,815 per annum (range from USD158 to USD 1,701,328 per annum) and USD1,659,250 (range from USD 41,147 to USD 6,714,483 per annum), respectively. A cross-country study involving five Asian cities by Jin et al. (2010) revealed that the representative households of the study sites positively valued the benefits of marine turtle conservation. Based on a case study from Malaysia, Teh et al. (2018) obtained that the total economic value of marine turtles was USD 23 million per year and argued that 1146 tourism jobs (equivalent to annual employment income of USD 469,000) could potentially be generated by protecting such marine species. De Brauwer et al. (2017) estimated that the economic value of muck dive tourism for both Indonesia and the Philippines collectively was more than USD$ 150 million per annum. In addition, over 2200 jobs were created by the dive tourism industry and attracted more than 100,000 divers annually.

However, despite the significant non-consumptive values of the highly valued groups of species such as marine turtles, whales, dolphins, sharks, rays, etc. (Farr et al. 2014; Wilson and Tisdell 2003; Wilson and Tisdell 2001; Marcovaldi and Dei Marcovaldi 1999; Loomis and Larson 1994), the quantification and monetisation of such species and marine ecosystem servicesFootnote 2 remain limited in, species (Teh et al. 2018; Ishizaki et al. 2011; Jin et al. 2010), services (Dang et al. 2021; Brander et al. 2012) and geographical coverage (Olewiler et al. 2016; BOBLME 2014) in the sub-regions. Failure to convey such economic value to policy-makers will potentially hamper the efforts to protect and conserve those valuable marine resources and environmental degradation (Jones-Walters and Mulder 2009). Furthermore, in the ‘blue economy’ context, McIlgorm (2016) observed that China, Vietnam and Indonesia had a substantially higher marine economy’s share in national gross domestic product (GDP) compared to that of Australia, NZ, Canada, USA, France and UK. Despite this, economic assessment of the marine economy is rare (Song et al. 2013; Zhao et al. 2014) and in its early stages in the sub-region (McIlgorm 2016).

While a detailed overview of the available valuation methods along with the underlying theory, their advantages and disadvantages, and pre-conditions for their use is beyond the scope of this chapter, a brief discussion on some of the widely used methods is given below.Footnote 3 The provisioning services of fisheries and aquaculture along with some of the tourism and recreation services are offered through well-developed markets and hence, their economic values can be generally estimated following the market price approach based on observed market prices (Schuhmann and Mahon 2015). However, many of the above-mentioned non-exploitative benefits and uses of marine living resources are not priced in the market. In such a case, two complementary methods, namely the ‘stated preference’ and the ‘revealed preference’ methods can be used to generate economic value. Under the ‘stated preference’ methods, contingent valuation and conjoint analysis can be applied (Ishizaki et al. 2011; Alriksson and Öberg 2008; Veisten 2007; Adamowicz et al. 1998). They are both founded on behavioural economics and are survey-based (Hanemann 1991; Barbier et al. 2009; Carson 2012) and the contingent valuation method has been the most widely used method to measure non-use values (Nunes and van den Bergh 2001). On the other hand, the revealed preference methods include, among others, the travel cost method, where costs incurred travelling to and at a site used as a proxy for price of recreation (Pascoe et al. 2014) and the hedonic price method to infer the prices which individuals are willing to pay for recreational goods (Carter and Liese 2010).

Other methods of estimating the economic value include the replacement cost approach that involves calculation of replacement cost based on market data (Troëng and Drews 2004) and the cost (damage) avoidance approach, which uses estimates of the expenditures that would be incurred to prevent, diminish or avoid harmful effects associated with degradations of natural resources (Schuhmann and Mahon 2015).

It is difficult to formulate a clear universal statement about the applicability of methods as such applicability, to a great extent, would be subject to particular circumstances. In applying valuation techniques, one needs to consider the following aspects with great caution: (1) limitations of these valuation methods, (2) the use of appropriate econometric techniques, (3) technical skills and capacity needed to perform the valuation tasks, (4) data limitations, (5) the costs of collecting data (Harrison and Lesley 1996), etc., among others. In any case, such exercise could at best produce only a crude estimate of such economic value.

In summary, it is quite clear that the fisheries and aquaculture sector in the sub-regions of Asia plays an important role in the socio-economic development of the region. In addition, the socio-economic potentials of non-consumptive benefits and uses of marine living resources and the importance of valuing such uses are highlighted. Therefore, reflecting on the current state of affairs, one should envisage a holistic approach—that takes into account the values produced by fisheries and aquaculture in the sub-regions—to sustainable management of fisheries and aquaculture resources.

3 Challenges to the Transition to the Blue Economy

Before turning to proposals for radical change of the status quo situation, it is important to give a brief account of the key challenges faced by the fisheries and aquaculture sector in the sub-regions and motivations for change. Despite the remarkable performance of the fisheries and aquaculture sector in the sub-regions over the period 2000–2018, the overall experience on the progress towards sustainability of fisheries resources has been far from satisfactory.

A number of factors both endogenous and exogenous to the fisheries and aquaculture sector have been inhibiting the sector’s progress towards long-term sustainability. Some of these factors are listed, in no particular order, below.Footnote 4

First, the twin problem of overfishing and overcapacity (Pagkalinawan et al. 2020; Pomeroy 2012; Williams and Staples 2010; FAO-WFC 2008; Salayo et al. 2008; Stobutzki et al. 2006). Second, the extent of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing within national jurisdiction (Kuperan and Jahan 2020) and beyond (Latun et al. 2016; Johns 2013; Williams 2013). The gravity of IUU fishing in the region was exemplified by the joint declaration of the International Day (June 5, 2019) by the United Nation’s Agencies, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) in Bangkok, Thailand for the fight against IUU fishing (www.fao.org/3/ca4937en/ca4937en.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2021). Third, weak enforcement of rules and lack of rule compliance (Kuperan and Jahan 2020; Dang et al. 2017; SEAFDEC 2017; Goldstein 2013; Catedrilla et al. 2012; Boonstra and Dang 2010). Fourth, inadequacy of the current legislative arrangements (Dang et al. 2017; Williams and Staples 2010). Fifth, information deficiency (Pomeroy 2012; de Graaf et al. 2011). Sixth, the countries lack of a coherent all-embracing approach as policies involving ocean industries are generally set at different government agencies (McIlgorm 2016; Williams and Staples 2010). Seventh, government fisheries agencies lack capacity needed to address the big marine fisheries challenges (Williams and Staples 2010). Eighth, the low prioritisation of fisheries issues (Funge-Smith and Bennett 2019; Teh et al. 2011). Ninth, the inadequacy of national and sub-regional plans along with the allocation of adequate funds to effectively address international policy change and subsequent expectations on coastal states (SEAFDEC 2017). For example, the blue economy initiative elevates complexity to a new level through the convergence of ocean-based industries and creates new and unprecedented expectations on coastal states with respect to sustainable management of ocean wealth. Tenth, the inefficient use of economic resources in fisheries (Nga et al. 2020; Larry et al. 2017; Teame 2017; Yang and Lou 2016; Wiyono and Hufiadi 2014; Zen et al. 2002) and aquaculture operations (Anh Ngoc et al. 2018; Zongli et al. 2017; Alam et al. 2012).

On the other hand, some of the notable external challenges facing the fisheries and aquaculture sector in the sub-regions are as follows. First, is the climate change threat to coastal and marine fisheries and aquaculture (Watkiss et al. 2019; Ding et al. 2017; Allison et al. 2009; Cochrane et al. 2009). Second is the existing maritime territorial dispute. For instance, the recent territorial disputes in the South China Sea are considered to be unproductive for sub-regional fisheries (Pornpatimakorn 2012) and a critical factor in China-ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) relations (Acharya 2013). The third is the extent of maritime piracy (Hastings 2020; Dillon 2005). The fourth is the impact of land and sea-based pollution (e.g. oil spill and ocean dumping) on marine living resources (Todd et al. 2010). The fifth is the regional conflict due to disparity of national values and economic and political interests. Shifts in the balance of regional power due to the rise of China and India are claimed to be a greater challenge to unity and cohesion in regional organisations (Acharya 2013; Berlin 2011; Rumley et al. 2012).

The scope of the challenges listed above is not confined within national jurisdictions and therefore, their remedial measures are beyond the scope of the conventional nation-state type organisation. Therefore, it is time to search for arrangements and innovative options to create a mutually beneficial regime (Bose 2021).

4 Managing the Transition: The Way Forward

The complexity under the ‘blue economy’ together with the challenges faced by the fisheries and aquaculture sector in the region necessitate the engagement of nation-states in reorganizing intra-agency cooperation at both national and regional levels guided by the existing international binding instruments, for example, the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UN 1982), Agenda 21 (UNCED 1992), the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UN 1995), etc., and innovative approaches (Bose 2021; Pomeroy et al. 2019; Al-Balushi et al. 2016) to managing regional public goods (Barrett 2020). Therefore, in managing the transition of the regional fisheries and aquaculture sector to the ‘blue economy’ and stressing the strategic significance of regional cooperation as a mechanism, the following strategic steps are proposed:

  1. (a)

    Organisational Reform: A close scrutiny of the objectives of the existing organisations of the Asian sub-regions such as, The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), The South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC), The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC), etc. indicates that individually they are limited either in geographical coverage or sectoral coverage, or both to effectively embrace and reconcile activities of ocean industries in achieving the goals stipulated in the ‘blue economy’ initiative. Therefore, to realise the vast economic potential of the fisheries and aquaculture sector in the sub-regions, the existing mandate of sub-regional and regional organisations needs to be broadened and aligned with the ‘blue economy’ goals.

    While the formation of common interests in the ‘blue economy’ initiative and interest in the creation of a mutually beneficial regime in the sub-regions are preconditions for such an integration of regional organisations, the fulfilment of such preconditions does not serve as a sufficient condition for action unless those common interests and shared goals are reinforced with agreements and implementation. It would not be surprising at all if nation-states lack interest to accomplish such tasks due to diversity among countries in their resource endowments, cultural heritage and uneven political interests and power that often undermine effective reform. While the existing literature on collective action advocates the superiority of regional cooperation and organisational integration to unilateral action (Bose et al. 2017; Acharya 2014; Meinzen-Dick and di Gregorio 2004), such attempts may be overshadowed temporarily by political interests of some members and persistent power rivalry between members. For example, the present geopolitical conditions such as the South China Sea disputes (Clark-Shen et al. 2020) and political upheaval in Myanmar, among others, are not conducive to harnessing broader cooperation possibilities in the sub-regions. However, cooperation with the majority carries with it a means of placing unwilling/non-compliant members with political power at a disadvantageous position and is likely to diminish their influence on the actions of other cooperative members (Barnes 1995). Furthermore, the cooperation should not be ad hoc in nature; it must be institutionalised with the establishment of strong compliance mechanisms at the outset that can be expected to alter the behaviour of members.

    Mutual trust (Wallis 2011), institutional innovations (Bose 2021) and greater transparency (Clark et al. 2015) will be necessary for achieving more efficient and effective governance that legitimises the inherent process, approach and management actions. Such governance should also value fairness, equality in opportunity and national security; otherwise, it would impair the effectiveness of the governance mechanisms. Inter-governmental organisations such as the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) could take a leading role in the development of such a governance framework.

  2. (b)

    Strengthening Regional Organisations: The ‘blue economy’ initiative does not necessarily demand for setting up a new regional organisation if the existing sub-regional and regional organisations can be horizontally integrated with an extended scope, an all-embracing governance mechanism and political authority to make collective binding decisions. In addressing the implementation challenge of the ecosystem-based approach to the Baltic Sea fisheries management, Haapasaari et al. (2021) suggested a similar approach based on the highly likely prospect of acceptability and adaptability of such an approach. Furthermore, such reform will minimise a country’s involvement in multiple sub-regional and regional organisations and, thereby, increase efficiency through the reduction of time and costs (Linn and Pidufala 2008).

    With particular reference to the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management in the sub-regions, there has been increasing recognition of the need for regional organisations (for example, Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), Regional Commission for Fisheries (RECOFI), etc.) to improve their governance of fisheries and conservation and management of fishery resources (Clark et al. 2015; Gilman et al. 2014). The effectiveness of existing Asian organisations in relation to managing security problems and the economic vulnerabilities of their members have also been questioned (Acharya and Johnston 2007). The complexity of issues involved demands for improved and inclusive governance based on political leadership, a common vision, comprehensive legislations, effective partnerships involving member-states, political authority to make decisions and investment in scientific research to help knowledge-based decision making (Acharya and Johnston 2007; Bennett et al. 2019) among others. A sense of mutual trust among member-states and public trust in organisational activities and performance must be restored to achieve organisational effectiveness. To foster necessary collaboration across the nations and integration across sectors, a model of joint leadership involving three well-recognised Asian powers—Japan, China and India would be more promising. Intervention of international institutions such as ESCAP may be required for resolving any disputes.

  3. (c)

    Rule Consistency (or Institutional Synergy): The task involves harmonisation of relevant national and regional regulatory legislations and policies with the related binding (e.g. UNCLOS, Agenda 21) and non-binding (e.g. FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO (2011)) international instruments. This type of substantial institutional synergy is not unrealistic or unfeasible. The creation of a single European currency illustrates the case in point. Furthermore, to achieve the ‘blue economy’ goals, the operations of the ocean-based industries including fisheries and aquaculture need to be brought under an integrated governance framework. The implication of rule consistency is that it gives rise to policy coherence that not only benefits the sustainable management of ocean wealth but can also help with making provisional agreements. For example, with particular reference to the South China Sea territorial disputes, Clark-Shen et al. (2020) pointed out the scope of developing cooperative agreements based on the existing commonalities of national fisheries laws and policies to safeguard the dwindling fisheries resources. In the context of South China Sea, Hsiao (2020) discussed the potential elements of four provisional fisheries enforcement arrangements (involving China, Japan Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia) and proposed the establishment of a jointly managed maritime zone with provisional measures that would facilitate the commencement of institutionalised cooperation on maritime law enforcement and fisheries issues.

  4. (d)

    Creating Incentives for Member-states: The proposed organisational integration and institutional harmonisation stated in (a) and (b) above would perform a number of important economic functions of collective action regime such as economies of scale, reduction of transaction costs, reduction of intra-group competition, increase of global competitiveness and risk reduction (Bose 2021; Acharya 2014). However, such steps obviously do not overcome the aforementioned challenges to fisheries unless there are other special mechanisms to raise the self-interest of member-states. The prospective benefits of collaboration in innovation, science and technology, research and development, sharing of country-specific skills and expertise, information sharing, etc. will likely prove to be powerful incentives for enhancing regional cooperation. These initiatives could also help diffuse the political sensitivities that have often held up progress towards South Asian economic integration. India’s bilateral science and technology cooperation with 83 countries in the world and development cooperation with ASEAN, SAARC, BIMSTEC, etc. in the region illustrate the point (Sharma and Varshney 2019). Another incentive mechanism is the provision of financial and capacity enhancing technical support to member countries to evaluate domestic regulations and address the implementation challenges (WB and UNDESA 2017). Regional institutions such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (ESCAP) can play a leading role using their convening power in this matter.

  5. (e)

    Creating Public Awareness and Policy Makers’ Interest: As pointed out earlier, while some piecemeal studies on ecosystem services are available, they do not explicitly reflect the overall economic value of marine living resources of the sub-region. It is important to note that a number of studies (Costanza et al. 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005) and initiatives (for instance, the Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity (TEEB), the Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative, etc.) in relation to the economic value of the world’s ecosystem services have played a significant role in raising public awareness of the ecosystem services paradigm (Jones-Walters and Mulder 2009) and research interest in estimating the value of ecosystem services at both local (Perez-Verdin et al. 2016) and global levels (Barbier et al. 2009; De groot et al. 2012; Pendleton et al. 2016).

Therefore, despite methodological flaws, pervasive uncertainties involved and the immensity in measuring non-use value and non-market goods and services (Eberle and Hayden 1991; Diamond and Hausman 1994; Carson et al. 2001; Hausman 2012; Lloyd-Smith 2018), such an undertaking will help create public awareness, generate political interest and create a ‘level playing field’ for fisheries and aquaculture in decision-making (Schuhmann and Mahon 2015; Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2010). For example, the damage assessment of the Exxon Valdez oil spill of March 1989 using the CV method (Carson 2012) and the support received from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Panel (Arrow et al. 1993) illustrate the point.

5 Concluding Remarks

Under an ever-evolving concept of the ‘blue economy,’ the oceans and seas are in a stage of transition. It should be recognised that the sustainability of oceans resources is not optional—it is essential for achieving the ‘blue economy’ and national developmental goals. In this regard, hard choices have to be made to achieve an appropriate balance between efficiency and equity, and sustainable resource management rather than resource exploitation (Bennett et al. 2019). These choices will test the political will and the creativity of the solutions. Ultimately, successful transition to the ‘blue economy’ requires a higher degree of regional integration than now exists. While there are no easy solutions in changing the organisational form, achieving rule consistency and remedying their inherent imperfections, it is not infeasible. Under the prevailing circumstances, the only available remedy is to try to make them work better. This is the modest underlying hope of this chapter.