Seven years ago, Chile promoted COP25 as a “Blue COP,” helping secure a formal dialogue on the ocean–climate change nexus. COP26 subsequently made that dialogue annual. Now, some are again calling COP31, opening in Antalya, Türkiye, on November 9^th, a “Blue COP.” The presidency has made oceans and seas one of 10 priorities in its voluntary Action Agenda, emphasizing coastal resilience, blue carbon, ocean observation, and data sharing. The growing attention could help protect marine ecosystems and coastal livelihoods.

But without attention to who controls investment and decisions, ocean initiatives risk advancing the commercial and strategic interests of powerful states and corporations while subordinating the needs of less-resourced states and ocean-dependent communities. That would reproduce the inequitable colonial relations that have long shaped vulnerability to climate change and the response to it.

This year’s ocean and climate change dialogue called for stronger links between national climate plans, biodiversity protection, and ocean governance, including closer cooperation between the Paris Agreement and the agreement on marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement). Participants also called for greater attention to mitigation, highlighting ocean-based renewable energy and maritime decarbonization as key opportunities while discussing port electrification, green hydrogen, and green maritime corridors.

These proposals connect ocean-based mitigation with debates about a transition from a “gray” to a “blue” ocean economy. The “gray” ocean economy represents a business-as-usual model of market-driven governance, which drives environmental degradation and concentrates wealth and control. Corporate revenues accrue disproportionately to a small number of firms, while marginalized groups face dispossession and restricted access to ocean spaces and resources. Exclusion from decisions and the devaluation of their knowledge and worldviews limit their influence over development, while social and racial hierarchies help justify harm to their lives and livelihoods. Proposals for a “blue” economy promise a more sustainable and equitable alternative, but the term remains politically contested. Critics warn that market-led blue growth can repackage capitalist accumulation and inequitable power relations under the “blue” label, lending legitimacy to activities that continue to degrade our natural environment and undermine the livelihoods of those who depend on it. Read more