Blue Growth: A Transitions Approach to Developing Sustainable Pathways

The sustainable management of Blue Growth is an urgent issue for coastal states. Marine industries have rapidly expanded over the last two decades and this is projected to continue with the European Green Deal and post-COVID economic recovery policies. The intensification of Blue Growth could have adverse socio-ecological implications and must, therefore, be managed in terms of sustainability, natural resource boundaries, and coastal community well-being. Managing Blue Growth in a sustainable manner however, is challenging due to the longstanding inefficiencies and inertia of existing marine governance regimes. Adopting a transitions approach has been advanced as a way of steering regime change so that it is not inhibited by these persistent problems. This paper reports on four case studies that adopt transitions thinking and use the multi-level perspective as a broad analytical framework through which to understand institutional dynamics, drivers and responses within core marine sectors. Our case studies analysis reveals several significant pressures for regime change within key marine sectors. These pressures need to be addressed through the adoption of a transition management approach. By adopting this approach and engaging key stakeholders, national and EU marine governance authorities can develop sustainable Blue Growth pathways that minimize the impact of continued growth on communities and the marine environment, maximizing the implementation of sustainable practices and addressing issues such as biodiversity loss and climate change

Challenges in measuring indicators of progress for the Atlantic Action Plan

The EU Atlantic Action Plan (AAP) has recently been updated and revised to support ‘blue growth’ along Europe’s western coastal regions. The revisions reflect recent challenges facing the Atlantic Arc maritime economies including the Covid-19 crisis, Brexit and the new requirements of the European Green Deal. This new revision, termed AAP 2.0, also addresses some of the weaknesses highlighted in the original Atlantic Action Plan particularly regarding identifying indicators that may be used to measure progress in the achievement of the Plan’s objectives. Using a database with comparable marine socio-economic data across the Atlantic regions, a number of indicators are identified that may be used to monitor progress of the AAP 2.0. Recent trends and spatial distributions across the Atlantic Arc region are shown for these indicators. The challenges in measuring progress are also highlighted, including where some AAP objectives and associated indicators may conflict with other EU policy aims and where the current monitoring framework can be bolstered with the inclusion of new indicators

Blue Growth: A Transitions Approach to Developing Sustainable Pathways

The sustainable management of Blue Growth is an urgent issue for coastal states. Marine industries have rapidly expanded over the last two decades and this is projected to continue with the European Green Deal and post-COVID economic recovery policies. The intensification of Blue Growth could have adverse socio-ecological implications and must, therefore, be managed in terms of sustainability, natural resource boundaries, and coastal community well-being. Manging Blue Growth in a sustainable manner however, is challenging due to the longstanding inefficiencies and inertia of existing marine governance regimes. Adopting a transitions approach has been advanced as a way of steering regime change so that it is not inhibited by these persistent problems. This paper reports on four case studies that adopt transitions thinking and use the multi-level perspective as a broad analytical framework through which to understand institutional dynamics, drivers and responses within core marine sectors. Our case studies analysis reveals several significant pressures for regime change within key marine sectors. These pressures need to be addressed through the adoption of a transition management approach. By adopting this approach and engaging key stakeholders, national and EU marine governance authorities can develop sustainable Blue Growth pathways that minimise the impact of continued growth on communities and the marine environment, maximising the implementation of sustainable practices and addressing issues such as biodiversity loss and climate change.<br/

Conceptualising Marine Biodiversity Mainstreaming as an Enabler of Regional Sustainable Blue Growth: The Case of the European Atlantic Area

After recognizing the importance of marine and coastal resources and the use of marine space for economic growth, the European Union (EU) created and implemented a long-term Blue Economy (BE) strategy that supports the development of traditional and emerging marine and maritime sectors, aiming at the enhancement of Blue Growth (BG). However, despite the existence of a robust policy framework that supports the expansion of BE sectors at both an EU Sea Basin and state level, scholars have been sceptical as to whether the pursuit of BG adequately addresses the challenges that usually come with economic development, including those of climate change and marine biodiversity loss. Various frameworks for integrating sectoral goals with each other and with environmental goals that could facilitate the transition towards Sustainable Blue Growth (SBG) already exist and have been suggested and promoted by the European Commission, such as Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) and Marine Spatial Planning (MSP). They require the consideration of marine ecosystems and biodiversity and their protection as one of the BE sectors to be integrated via planning and management, which in turn requires the estimation of the value of ecosystem services and the spatial implications thereof. Nonetheless, there is little evidence or real-world examples on whether and how ecosystems, and within them coastal and marine biodiversity, are actually integrated (i.e., mainstreamed) when developing sectoral policies and planning and implementing economic activities at sea at various scales, i.e., local, national, and regional, and what the necessary steps and actions are that would facilitate such mainstreaming. By seeking evidence in EU and Atlantic Arc (AA) member states’ sectoral policies on marine tourism, ports and shipping, marine renewable energy, and fisheries and aquaculture (as promoted by the Atlantic Maritime Strategy and its corresponding action plans) and in the outcomes of the Interreg Atlantic Funded Research Project MOSES (aiming at valuating a Sustainable Blue Economy at the national and regional scale of the EU AA), the present article focused on understanding if and how marine biodiversity is taken into consideration by EU and AA BE and/or BG policies, strategies, and sectoral developments. Τhe selected sectoral policies demonstrate a good uptake of marine-ecosystem- and biodiversity-related challenges; however, at both the EU and the AA member-state level, it is unclear whether and how marine ecosystems and biodiversity are addressed as a separate BE sector. As such, we argue why and how Marine Biodiversity Mainstreaming (MBM) could address this gap, and hence it could contribute to planning, implementing, and managing maritime economic activities towards SBG at the Sea Basin level. This is demonstrated by illustrating the central role of MBM in enabling (and being further enabled by) the above integrative frameworks (i.e., MSP and EBM) and by presenting the key elements and actions required for such facilitation

Conceptualising marine biodiversity mainstreaming as an enabler of regional sustainable blue growth: the case of the European Atlantic area

After recognizing the importance of marine and coastal resources and the use of marine space for economic growth, the European Union (EU) created and implemented a long-term Blue Economy (BE) strategy that supports the development of traditional and emerging marine and maritime sectors, aiming at the enhancement of Blue Growth (BG). However, despite the existence of a robust policy framework that supports the expansion of BE sectors at both an EU Sea Basin and state level, scholars have been sceptical as to whether the pursuit of BG adequately addresses the challenges that usually come with economic development, including those of climate change and marine biodiversity loss. Various frameworks for integrating sectoral goals with each other and with environmental goals that could facilitate the transition towards Sustainable Blue Growth (SBG) already exist and have been suggested and promoted by the European Commission, such as Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) and Marine Spatial Planning (MSP). They require the consideration of marine ecosystems and biodiversity and their protection as one of the BE sectors to be integrated via planning and management, which in turn requires the estimation of the value of ecosystem services and the spatial implications thereof. Nonetheless, there is little evidence or real-world examples on whether and how ecosystems, and within them coastal and marine biodiversity, are actually integrated (i.e., mainstreamed) when developing sectoral policies and planning and implementing economic activities at sea at various scales, i.e., local, national, and regional, and what the necessary steps and actions are that would facilitate such mainstreaming. By seeking evidence in EU and Atlantic Arc (AA) member states’ sectoral policies on marine tourism, ports and shipping, marine renewable energy, and fisheries and aquaculture (as promoted by the Atlantic Maritime Strategy and its corresponding action plans) and in the outcomes of the Interreg Atlantic Funded Research Project MOSES (aiming at valuating a Sustainable Blue Economy at the national and regional scale of the EU AA), the present article focused on understanding if and how marine biodiversity is taken into consideration by EU and AA BE and/or BG policies, strategies, and sectoral developments. Τhe selected sectoral policies demonstrate a good uptake of marine-ecosystem- and biodiversity-related challenges; however, at both the EU and the AA member-state level, it is unclear whether and how marine ecosystems and biodiversity are addressed as a separate BE sector. As such, we argue why and how Marine Biodiversity Mainstreaming (MBM) could address this gap, and hence it could contribute to planning, implementing, and managing maritime economic activities towards SBG at the Sea Basin level. This is demonstrated by illustrating the central role of MBM in enabling (and being further enabled by) the above integrative frameworks (i.e., MSP and EBM) and by presenting the key elements and actions required for such facilitation

Challenges in measuring indicators of progress for the Atlantic Action Plan

The EU Atlantic Action Plan (AAP) has recently been updated and revised to support ‘blue growth’ along Europe’s western coastal regions. The revisions reflect recent challenges facing the Atlantic Arc maritime economies including the Covid-19 crisis, Brexit and the new requirements of the European Green Deal. This new revision, termed AAP 2.0, also addresses some of the weaknesses highlighted in the original Atlantic Action Plan particularly regarding identifying indicators that may be used to measure progress in the achievement of the Plan’s objectives. Using a database with comparable marine socio-economic data across the Atlantic regions, a number of indicators are identified that may be used to monitor progress of the AAP 2.0. Recent trends and spatial distributions across the Atlantic Arc region are shown for these indicators. The challenges in measuring progress are also highlighted, including where some AAP objectives and associated indicators may conflict with other EU policy aims and where the current monitoring framework can be bolstered with the inclusion of new indicators

COVID-19 outcomes in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases treated with rituximab: a cohort study

International audienceBackground: Various observations have suggested that the course of COVID-19 might be less favourable in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases receiving rituximab compared with those not receiving rituximab. We aimed to investigate whether treatment with rituximab is associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.Methods: In this cohort study, we analysed data from the French RMD COVID-19 cohort, which included patients aged 18 years or older with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases and highly suspected or confirmed COVID-19. The primary endpoint was the severity of COVID-19 in patients treated with rituximab (rituximab group) compared with patients who did not receive rituximab (no rituximab group). Severe disease was defined as that requiring admission to an intensive care unit or leading to death. Secondary objectives were to analyse deaths and duration of hospital stay. The inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score method was used to adjust for potential confounding factors (age, sex, arterial hypertension, diabetes, smoking status, body-mass index, interstitial lung disease, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, corticosteroid use, chronic renal failure, and the underlying disease [rheumatoid arthritis vs others]). Odds ratios and hazard ratios and their 95% CIs were calculated as effect size, by dividing the two population mean differences by their SD. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04353609.Findings: Between April 15, 2020, and Nov 20, 2020, data were collected for 1090 patients (mean age 55·2 years [SD 16·4]); 734 (67%) were female and 356 (33%) were male. Of the 1090 patients, 137 (13%) developed severe COVID-19 and 89 (8%) died. After adjusting for potential confounding factors, severe disease was observed more frequently (effect size 3·26, 95% CI 1·66-6·40, p=0·0006) and the duration of hospital stay was markedly longer (0·62, 0·46-0·85, p=0·0024) in the 63 patients in the rituximab group than in the 1027 patients in the no rituximab group. 13 (21%) of 63 patients in the rituximab group died compared with 76 (7%) of 1027 patients in the no rituximab group, but the adjusted risk of death was not significantly increased in the rituximab group (effect size 1·32, 95% CI 0·55-3·19, p=0·53).Interpretation: Rituximab therapy is associated with more severe COVID-19. Rituximab will have to be prescribed with particular caution in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases