The volume of goods transported by container shipping each year has quadrupled since 2000, and about 600,000 submarine cables have been laid on the seafloor in that time, which now carry almost all international telecommunications. The energy generated by offshore wind farms has increased 400-fold in the past two decades, and the volume of farmed seafood has grown by five percent on average each year.
During the same time period, most major discoveries of oil and gas deposits have been made offshore and around 500,000 square miles of the seabed has been leased for exploratory mining. There was practically no marine biotechnology sector at the turn of the millennium, but since then, more than 13,000 marine genetic sequences have been patented.
We call this rapid expansion of ocean-based industries since 2000 “the blue acceleration”. As the industrialisation of the ocean continues apace, it risks transforming marine ecosystems, and consuming the shared spaces of one of the world’s largest and oldest employers – small-scale fisheries.
To make these industries sustainable, we need to know more about the businesses which comprise them. So who’s driving this breakneck growth in the ocean economy? In a recent study, we discovered that a relatively small number of companies, headquartered in a few countries, generate most of the revenues from using the ocean. In 2018, the 100 largest companies took an estimated 60 percent of all revenues in eight industries: offshore oil and gas, container shipping companies carrying many of the goods we buy, companies producing and processing seafood, offshore wind energy producers, cruise tourism operators, and a number of industries that support the wider ocean economy, including marine parts and equipment makers, shipbuilders and repairers, and port maintenance businesses.
This group of companies – the Ocean 100 – generated $1.1 trillion in 2018, equivalent to the GDP of Mexico – the 15th largest economy in the world. While dominated by offshore oil and gas (47 of the 100 companies), most of the revenue was generated by just a handful of companies in each of the eight industries. The ten largest companies generated 45 percent of all revenues on average.
There’s always a bigger fish
This extreme concentration of revenue in the ocean economy mirrors the structure of the global economy as a whole. For many land-based industries, a relatively small number of transnational corporations control a huge market share of output. There tend to be higher barriers to entry in the ocean economy though. A lot of expertise and capital are needed to operate in the sea, both for established industries and emerging ones, such as deep-sea mining and marine biotechnology.
But this concentration poses a number of risks, both to the ocean environment and the people who depend upon it. Powerful companies can more easily lobby governments to weaken social or environmental rules that might otherwise make them limit greenhouse gas emissions or pay higher wages. A top-heavy ocean economy can also stifle innovation, or threaten access for small-scale fishers to areas they’ve used for generations.
The Ocean 100 benefit the most from ocean use, and they’re most capable of making their industries sustainable. Not just by doing no harm, but by embracing the idea of corporate stewardship to do some good.
Taming the leviathans
The shipping industry accounts for roughly 2.5 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Technologies exist to rapidly make this sector cleaner and more fuel-efficient. So, a relatively small number of shipping companies in the Ocean 100 could have a big influence on global emissions.
Ocean 100 companies could also collaborate to fund projects where public resources are scarce. By pooling donations to a global trust fund or accepting an ocean equity tax, these companies could help clean up plastic pollution in the ocean, fund the enforcement of conservation areas, and support small-scale fishing communities.
Still, we shouldn’t be naive. Companies follow the logic of markets and respond to shareholder and consumer demand. Voluntary initiatives can range from profound changes in business practices to superficial green washing.
But the seafood industry could point the way forward for the rest of the Ocean 100. After a study found a similar concentration of revenue and output among a handful of companies, ten of the world’s largest seafood businesses convened the Seafood Business for Ocean Stewardship initiative in 2016. In December 2020, they pledged to reduce illegal fishing, emissions and discarded fishing gear littering the ocean by the end of 2021.
Could the Ocean 100 do something similar? Corporations would benefit as better ocean stewards by gaining more public support and reducing their risks in a volatile economy. Scientists can help ensure these efforts are based on evidence. Meanwhile, growing demand among customers for sustainable goods and services and new technologies that make the work of corporations more transparent, such as satellite data, should all compel businesses to prove they take environmental problems seriously. Now we know who should lead the way towards a greener blue planet.
John Virdin is Director of the Ocean Policy Program at Duke University.
Henrik Österblom is a Professor of Environmental Science at Stockholm University.
Jean-Baptiste Jouffray is a Postdoctoral Researcher in Sustainability Science at Stockholm University.
This article appears courtesy of The Conversation and may be found in its original form here.
The opinions expressed herein are the author’s and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.
(Bloomberg) — The head of the International Monetary Fund warned the US that the global economy is closely watching interest rates and industrial policies given the potential spillovers from the world’s biggest economy and reserve currency.
“All eyes are on the US,” Kristalina Georgieva said in an interview on Bloomberg’s Surveillance on Thursday.
The two biggest issues, she said, are “what is going to happen with inflation and interest rates” and “how is the US going to navigate this world of more intrusive government policies.”
The sustained strength of the US dollar is “concerning” for other currencies, particularly the lack of clarity on how long that may last.
“That’s what I hear from countries,” said the leader of the fund, which has about 190 members. “How long will the Fed be stuck with higher interest rates?”
Georgieva was speaking on the sidelines of the IMF and World Bank’s spring meetings in Washington, where policymakers have been debating the impacts of Washington and Beijing’s policies and their geopolitical rivalry.
Read More: A Resilient Global Economy Masks Growing Debt and Inequality
Georgieva said the IMF is optimistic that the conditions will be right for the Federal Reserve to start cutting rates this year.
“The Fed is not yet prepared, and rightly so, to cut,” she said. “How fast? I don’t think we should gear up for a rapid decline in interest rates.”
The IMF chief also repeated her concerns about China devoting too much capital and labor toward export-oriented manufacturing, causing other countries, including the US, to retaliate with protectionist policies.
China Overcapacity
“If China builds overcapacity and pushes exports that create reciprocity of action, then we are in a world of more fragmentation not less, and that ultimately is not good for China,” Georgieva said.
“What I want to see China doing is get serious about reforms, get serious about demand and consumption,” she added.
A number of countries have recently criticized China for what they see as excessive state subsidies for manufacturers, particularly in clean energy sectors, that might flood global markets with cheap goods and threaten competing firms.
US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen hammered at the theme during a recent trip to China, repeatedly calling on Beijing to shift its economic policy toward stimulating domestic demand.
Chinese officials have acknowledged the risk of overcapacity in some areas, but have largely portrayed the criticism as overblown and hypocritical, coming from countries that are also ramping up clean energy subsidies.
(Updates with additional Georgieva comments from eighth paragraph.)
The head of the International Monetary Fund warned the US that the global economy is closely watching interest rates and industrial policies given the potential spillovers from the world’s biggest economy and reserve currency.
Author of the article:
Bloomberg News
Jonathan Ferro and Christopher Condon
Published Apr 18, 2024 • 2 minute read
Article content
(Bloomberg) — The head of the International Monetary Fund warned the US that the global economy is closely watching interest rates and industrial policies given the potential spillovers from the world’s biggest economy and reserve currency.
“All eyes are on the US,” Kristalina Georgieva said in an interview on Bloomberg’s Surveillance on Thursday.
Article content
The two biggest issues, she said, are “what is going to happen with inflation and interest rates” and “how is the US going to navigate this world of more intrusive government policies.”
Advertisement 2
THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O’Connor, Gabriel Friedman, Victoria Wells and others.
Daily content from Financial Times, the world’s leading global business publication.
Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.
National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.
Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.
SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O’Connor, Gabriel Friedman, Victoria Wells and others.
Daily content from Financial Times, the world’s leading global business publication.
Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.
National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.
Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.
REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
Access articles from across Canada with one account.
Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.
Enjoy additional articles per month.
Get email updates from your favourite authors.
Sign In or Create an Account
or
Article content
The sustained strength of the US dollar is “concerning” for other currencies, particularly the lack of clarity on how long that may last.
“That’s what I hear from countries,” said the leader of the fund, which has about 190 members. “How long will the Fed be stuck with higher interest rates?”
Georgieva was speaking on the sidelines of the IMF and World Bank’s spring meetings in Washington, where policymakers have been debating the impacts of Washington and Beijing’s policies and their geopolitical rivalry.
Read More: A Resilient Global Economy Masks Growing Debt and Inequality
Georgieva said the IMF is optimistic that the conditions will be right for the Federal Reserve to start cutting rates this year.
“The Fed is not yet prepared, and rightly so, to cut,” she said. “How fast? I don’t think we should gear up for a rapid decline in interest rates.”
The IMF chief also repeated her concerns about China devoting too much capital and labor toward export-oriented manufacturing, causing other countries, including the US, to retaliate with protectionist policies.
China Overcapacity
Advertisement 3
Article content
“If China builds overcapacity and pushes exports that create reciprocity of action, then we are in a world of more fragmentation not less, and that ultimately is not good for China,” Georgieva said.
“What I want to see China doing is get serious about reforms, get serious about demand and consumption,” she added.
A number of countries have recently criticized China for what they see as excessive state subsidies for manufacturers, particularly in clean energy sectors, that might flood global markets with cheap goods and threaten competing firms.
US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen hammered at the theme during a recent trip to China, repeatedly calling on Beijing to shift its economic policy toward stimulating domestic demand.
Chinese officials have acknowledged the risk of overcapacity in some areas, but have largely portrayed the criticism as overblown and hypocritical, coming from countries that are also ramping up clean energy subsidies.
(Updates with additional Georgieva comments from eighth paragraph.)
Comments