Making Waves World Bank Support for the Blue Economy, 2012–23 An Independent Evaluation © 2024 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org ATTRIBUTION Please cite the report as: World Bank. 2024. Making Waves: World Bank Support for the Blue Economy, 2012–23. Independent Evaluation Group. Washington, DC: World Bank. COVER PHOTO Adapted from Shutterstock/Rudchenko Liliia EDITING AND PRODUCTION Amanda O’Brien GRAPHIC DESIGN Rafaela Sarinho This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The bound- aries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissem- ination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Making Waves World Bank Support for the Blue Economy, 2012–23 An Independent Evaluation August 19, 2024 Contents Abbreviations v Acknowledgments vi Management Response viii Overview xi 1. Background and Context������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 1 Evaluation Purpose, Questions, Scope, and Methods 4 2. The World Bank’s Articulation of the Blue Economy����������������������������������������������8 Corporate Articulation of the Blue Economy 10 Articulation of the Blue Economy in Country Diagnostics 15 Articulation of the Blue Economy in the World Bank’s Evolution 20 3. The World Bank’s Operationalization of the Blue Economy���������������������������������22 Enabling Blue Economy Development at the Country Level 24 Enabling Blue Economy Development at the Regional Level 32 Adapting Established Sectors to Achieve Blue Economy Aims 34 4. Conclusions and Recommendations���������������������������������������������������������������������55 World Bank Articulation of the Blue Economy 55 World Bank Operationalization of the Blue Economy 57 Bibliography���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������60 Boxes Articulation of the Holistic Sustainable Blue Economy Box 2.1.  Aims by the Partners 13 Articulation of the Blue Economy Approach in Ghana’s Country Climate Box 2.2.  and Development Report 17 Linking Integrated Coastal Zone Management and Marine Spatial Planning Box 3.1.  Processes to Ensure the Success of the Blue Economy 29 Box 3.2. Maritime Transport Projects That Use a Blue Economy Lens 47 ii Figures Figure 1.1. Timeline of World Bank Engagement in the Blue Economy  4 Figure 2.1. Articulation of the Blue Economy in Systematic Country Diagnostics  16 Articulation of the Blue Economy in Country Climate Figure 2.2.  and Development Reports  18 Country Climate and Development Reports That Reference Climate Figure 2.3.  Risks to Blue Economy Sectors  19 Highest Ocean Plastic Waste Polluters  Figure 3.1.  41 PROBLUE Financing by Pillar, by Grant Volume  Figure 3.2.  49 Appendixes Appendix A. Evaluation Methods 80 Appendix B. Countries Included in the Evaluation 102 Appendix C. Evaluation Portfolio 109 iii Making Waves Abbreviations ASA advisory services and analytics CCDR Country Climate and Development Report CEM Country Economic Memorandum CROP Caribbean Regional Oceanscape Project ENB Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy FY fiscal year GP Global Practice ICZM integrated coastal zone management MSP marine spatial planning OECS Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States SCD Systematic Country Diagnostic SIDS small island developing states All dollar amounts are US dollars unless otherwise indicated. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    v Acknowledgments This evaluation was prepared by an Independent Evaluation Group team led by Lauren Kelly (lead evaluation officer) and Joy Butscher (evaluation officer), under the guidance of Marialisa Motta (former manager), Christopher Nelson (acting manager), Carmen Nonay (director), and Sabine Bernabè (Director-General, Evaluation). The core evaluation team included Ridwan Bolaji Bello (evaluation analyst), Elizabeth Dodds (consultant), Alvina Erman (economist), Arjun Kaushik (consultant), Xiaoyi Lu (extended-term consultant), and Sanittawan Nikki Tan (evaluation analyst). Estelle Raimondo (program manager), Harsh Anuj (data scientist), Diana-Mariana Stanescu (extended-term consultant), and Virginia Ziulu (data scientist) of the methods advisory function provided methodological guidance and support. Jean-Jacques Alain Ildevert Ahouansou, Romayne Pereira, and Viktoriya Yevsyeyeva provided administrative support. Steve Fletcher (professor of ocean policy and economy and director of revolution plastics and the Global Plastics Policy Centre at the University of Portsmouth) supported the global blue economy expert interviews and Systematic Country Diagnostic and Country Climate and Development Report analyses and delivered a compendium on plastics and solid waste. Antaya March (senior research associate and blue governance expert at the University of Portsmouth) also supported the Systematic Country Diagnostic and Country Climate and Development Report analyses and conducted the St. Lucia (Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States) and the Making Waves  Acknowledgments Seychelles case studies. Kevin Crockford (former World Bank senior rural development specialist) and Xiaoyi Lu conducted the Bangladesh and India case studies. Phil Karp (former World Bank lead knowledge management officer and ocean governance specialist) conducted the Belize case study and project performance assessment of the Belize Marine Conservation and Climate Adaptation Project, together with Jennifer Chapman (coastal and marine management expert), Arlenie Rogers (marine biologist and assistant professor at the University of Belize), and Arjun Kaushik. Lucy Greenhill (head of blue economy policy and practice at Howell Marine Consulting [HMC] and honorary research fellow at the University of St Andrews), vi Gabrielle Johnson (marine scientist and senior international marine program manager), and Sanittawan Nikki Tan conducted the Indonesia case study, and Chikako Miwa (evaluation analyst) conducted the project performance assessment of the Indonesia Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Project Phase II and Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program—Coral Triangle Initiative. Alvina Erman and Edward Willsteed (associate director at HMC) conducted the Cabo Verde case study. Joy Butscher, Lauren Kelly, and Antaya March conducted the Kenya case study. Elizabeth Dodds and Sally Judson (consultant) conducted the Morocco case study on desk and the project performance assessment of the Morocco Integrated Coastal Zone Management Project. Stephen Porter (senior evaluation officer) conducted an expanded Implementation Completion and Results Report Review of the Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program. Edward Willsteed conducted the small-scale fisheries analysis. Vanessa Smith (head of practice in natural capital at HMC) and Joseph Kofi Ansong (expert coastal and marine planner and consultant at HMC) conducted an analysis of integrated coastal zone management and marine spatial planning. Dickon Howell (director at HMC and visiting professor of practice at Newcastle University) provided overall advice and guidance. The report was peer-reviewed by Chamberlain Emmanuel (head of the Environmental Sustainability Division at the Organisation of Eastern Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    vii Caribbean States Commission), Melissa Garren (founder and chief executive officer of Working Ocean Strategies), and Jonathan McCue (managing director of Sustainable Seas Ltd). Management Response Management of the World Bank thanks the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) for the opportunity to provide comments on Making Waves: World Bank Support for the Blue Economy, 2012–23. The evaluation assesses the implementation of the World Bank’s blue economy approach to address ocean and coastal governance from 2012 to 2023. This agenda is critical because the ocean and coastal resources are integral to inclusive growth, jobs, livelihoods, food and nutrition security, and a livable planet. The report is also relevant for the evolution discussion and the Global Challenge Programs. Management thanks IEG for its ongoing collaboration. World Bank Management Response Overall Management is pleased that the report acknowledges the progress made by the World Bank to integrate the blue economy lens into country diagnostics and operations. Notwithstanding the focus on assessing fidelity of actions to a particular definition of the blue economy, the report recognizes progress made by the World Bank in the overall agenda to emphasize further attention to scale-up and replication. Using focused analytics that support a holistic approach to the blue economy and incorporating the blue economy approach into country diagnostics of coastal nations, including small island Making Waves  Management Response developing states, is important given their acute vulnerability to climate change and economic reliance on coastal and marine natural assets. The blue economy remains a priority for the World Bank Group as signaled by having dedicated ocean-related Scorecard indicators under the green and blue planet and resilient populations outcome area and by recognizing the blue economy contribution to several other Scorecard indicators (for example, those related to food and nutrition security and renewable energy). Management appreciates the recognition given to the groundbreaking PROBLUE multidonor trust fund, which has contributed to the uptake of the blue economy approach and the expansion of the investment portfolio. viii PROBLUE has been recently extended to 2030 and will continue to act as a blue economy accelerator for clients, leveraging donor financing and supporting building a robust pipeline of investments. PROBLUE has also been at the forefront of numerous strong partnerships not only at the global and regional levels but also at the country level. Management welcomes the report’s recognition of the World Bank’s work on regional platforms and enabling conditions. Considerable progress has been made in advancing the blue economy agenda, especially given the lengthy time frames and behavioral shifts that are necessary to transition to the blue economy approach. The World Bank has made use of financial instruments, including development policy operations, to help build enabling conditions for the adoption of the blue economy approach and has strengthened regional platforms. Progress is noteworthy in strengthening the West Africa Coastal Areas Management Program Platform, various regional fisheries bodies, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ capacity to address coastal resilience, sustainable fisheries, and marine plastic pollution. The World Bank also made efforts to strengthen governance systems, including institutional arrangements, policies, and regulations, and to support marine spatial planning in a growing number of countries. Recommendations Management agrees with the first recommendation to further articulate Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    ix the commitment to helping clients achieve a more holistic meaning of the blue economy. Although management believes that climate change and biodiversity are implicitly embedded in the World Bank’s existing definition of the blue economy, it agrees that the explanatory statement could include these elements more explicitly. Management concurs that these changes would better highlight the integration of the various oceanic sectors under the blue economy approach, as described in Riding the Blue Wave: Applying the Blue Economy Approach to World Bank Operations. This will help redouble the efforts to communicate the multiple dimensions of the blue economy both internally and among partners and clients in relevant country engagements. Management agrees with the second recommendation on proactively supporting a holistic blue economy approach in coastal and marine areas. The blue economy work continues to evolve, and the management remains committed to proactively supporting clients to achieve sustainable and inclusive development of coastal and marine areas through the blue economy approach. Management welcomes IEG’s assessment on how to better integrate the blue economy in country diagnostics (Systematic Country Diagnostics and Country Climate and Development Reports) but notes that the World Bank’s work is country driven and focused on priorities identified by each country to meet their development goals. Management will continue operationalizing the blue economy approach in relation to country contexts; how it plays out in real time at the seascape level will look different—in scale and shape—from country to country. Management agrees with the third recommendation on working effectively with partners and clients to help them develop necessary policy and institutional reforms in support of blue economy objectives. Management agrees with the recommendation to strengthen partnerships at the regional level and to promote the uptake of the blue economy approach across Global Practices and country units. Management will continue using the PROBLUE trust fund to implement the blue economy approach across sectors and to advance the report’s recommendations. Making Waves  Management Response x Overview 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 asso- ciated 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 fish- eries for their welfare, mainly in developing countries (FAO, Duke University, and WorldFish 2023). In the least-developed countries, seafood is the pri- mary protein source for over 50 percent of people and an important social safety net (FAO 2022). For small island developing states (SIDS), the exclu- sive 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 Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    xi 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 in- stitutional capacity. Policies governing ocean and coastal resources are often fragmented, characterized by legal and regulatory gaps and overlapping in- stitutional 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 Making Waves  Overview the health of ocean ecosystems” (World Bank 2017e). Since then, the World Bank has produced blue economy advisory and analytics, housed a multi- donor 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 xii 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 consid- erations, types of activities, and timing. The evaluation scope covers 109 countries with a coastline or any form of ocean access, including activi- ties 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 Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    xiii 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 ap- proach. 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 econo- my 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 ana- lytics. 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 comprehen- Making Waves  Overview sively 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 refer- ences 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 xiv 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 secu- rity, 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 increas- ingly 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 clar- ified that the sustainable blue economy concept converges around the need for a more balanced approach, reconciling economic growth with environ- mental stewardship and social equity. In the case of the European Union, for example, this clarification represents a sea change compared with the previ- ous 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 stud- ies, clients are using the World Bank’s corporate definition to inform their own blue economy strategies. However, the case studies showed that these Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    xv strategies are better at articulating blue growth aims than at articulating how triple-bottom-line objectives will be achieved across relevant minis- tries. 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 under- standing 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 includ- ed in just five Country Economic Memorandums, four of which cover SIDS. Although SCDs are beginning to reference the blue economy, compre- hensiveness 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 sustain- ability. 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, im- pacts of rapid tourism development on fisheries through increased pollution Making Waves  Overview 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 activ- ities and climate action (Ghana is a best practice example); 3 of the CCDRs xvi 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 ad- aptation 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 environ- ments, which overlooks the significant role of marine ecosystems in global Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    xvii 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 build- ing 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 be- ginning 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 institution- al development (with few exceptions, such as in the OECS and Morocco). Addressing blue economy policy and institutional gaps is critical for achiev- ing 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 econ- omy 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 prac- Making Waves  Overview tices 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, xviii integrated, and participatory approach to planning and managing coastal and marine areas. The World Bank was an early adopter of ICZM, a bot- tom-up, iterative governance approach to coastal development. In all projects, ICZM improved coastal management by resolving policy and in- stitutional 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 fish- eries, coastal resilience, marine plastic pollution, and so on. There have also been missed opportunities, for example within the African Union, to sup- port 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 Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    xix 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 decar- bonization 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 as- Making Waves  Overview sistance 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 com- munities 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. xx 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 gov- ernments 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 produc- tion. 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 competitive- ness 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 mobi- lize financing, knowledge, and technical assistance to implement integrated development strategies that build resilience, address climate change, reduce Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    xxi 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 oper- ations. 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 ap- proved 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 decar- bonization 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 multi- donor trust fund has been instrumental in helping the World Bank finance blue economy analyses lodged within advisory and operations. Blue econo- my 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 integra- tion 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: Making Waves  Overview » 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 approach- es, and clarify links to pressing food and nutrition security, climate change, xxii 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 par- ticipatory 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 identi- fication and the addressing of policy and institutional gaps that currently undermine blue economy development through effective partnering with re- gional organizations, multilateral development banks, and bilateral agencies. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    xxiii 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. 1 | Background and Context 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, absorbing 30 percent of carbon diox- ide emissions and over 90 percent of the excess heat from global warming (IPCC 2019). Coastal resources are natural resources occurring within coastal waters and their adjacent shorelands that include salt marshes, wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, mangroves, and coral reefs, as well as fish and wildlife and their respective habitats. Coastal re- sources, such as mangroves, are vital for carbon sequestration—acre by acre, mangroves store up to four times more carbon than terrestrial forests (Donato et al. 2011). Moreover, coral reefs and mangroves act as natural buf- fers and mitigate coastal flooding; coral reefs can dissipate up to 97 percent of wave energy, and mangroves provide flood protection benefits of some $65 billion in annual avoided losses (Menéndez et al. 2020). Oceans and coastal resources are vital for inclusive growth, jobs, and food and nutrition security. The value of marine and coastal resources and indus- tries (for example, fishing, aquaculture, shipping, tourism, offshore energy) is estimated to be between 3 and 5 percent of global GDP (Patil et al. 2016). Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    1 Tourism—80 percent of which involves coastal and marine activities—is a crucial source of jobs and livelihoods in developing countries, where most people who work in tourism reside (OECD 2020; WTTC 2022). Small-scale fisheries account for at least 40 percent of the world’s total fisheries catch, and approximately 500 million people depend on small-scale fisheries for their livelihoods, mainly in developing countries (FAO, Duke University, and WorldFish 2023). In the least-developed countries, seafood is the pri- mary protein source for over 50 percent of people, and fishing is used as a social safety net for people living in poverty (FAO 2022). For small island developing states (SIDS),1 the exclusive economic zone—the ocean under their control—is, on average, 28 times the country’s land mass. Thus, the economies of many SIDS are largely dependent on ocean and coastal re- sources that also sustain livelihoods and employment. Ocean and coastal resources are in a state of emergency as a result of gover- nance and management failures compounded by low institutional capacity. Oceans and coastal areas have been treated as limitless resources and largely cost-free repositories of waste (World Bank and UN DESA 2017). The policies governing ocean and coastal resources are often fragmented, characterized by legal and regulatory gaps and overlapping institutional mandates. There are limited incentives for institutions to coordinate rather than compete. Institutions also often exhibit information and skill gaps, such as in natural capital accounting and ocean and coastal spatial planning, which under- mine their ability to effectively govern. Ill-regulated coastal development has resulted in the destruction of 1 million hectares of mangroves between 1990 and 2020 (FAO 2020a; Merzdorf 2020). Some 34 percent of global fish stocks have been overfished, including as a result of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing (FAO 2020b). Oceans and marine life are also at risk from perverse policies that have failed to prevent 11 million tons of plastic waste and harmful chemicals from agricultural runoff, industrial processes, and wastewater from entering oceans annually (UNEP 2018). In addition, the lack of regulation does not bode well for the sustainable growth of established and emerging ocean and coastal sectors that are competing for limited space and resources. Delayed climate action is further threatening oceans and coastal resources, resulting in a cascade of negative environmental and human welfare effects. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has pointed to the unprec- edented and enduring threats to the ocean from climate change, including the escalating costs and risks of delayed action. The projected global rise in Making Waves  Chapter 1 sea levels and temperatures threatens to destroy valuable ocean and coast- al resources critical for livelihoods and human well-being. Sea level rise is displacing hundreds of millions of people living in coastal areas (Kulp and Strauss 2019). Changes in ocean currents and temperatures are altering fish migration patterns, affecting yields and community welfare. For example, a 1°C increase in sea surface temperature is expected to reduce global fish- ery yields by 4 percent, or 3.4 million tons (IPCC 2019). Coral bleaching and mortality events, caused mainly by rising sea temperatures, can lead to a 2 significant loss of local revenue from reduced tourist activity and access to the fish that feed off coral reefs. Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Maldives derive almost 60 percent of their tourism income from their coral reefs (UN-OHRLLS 2021). International actors have progressively proposed using a blue economy approach to address ocean and coastal governance failures. The notion of the blue economy was introduced at the 2012 Rio+20: The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development by coastal countries that noted that even though many understand how to stimulate economic growth in ocean areas, there has been a lack of focus on the policies, conditions, and pathways needed to achieve sustainable and inclusive ocean and coastal economies. Although there is no single definition of the blue economy, international actors have coalesced around the need to achieve a triple bottom line—that is, the need to achieve healthy ocean and coastal resources 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 coordination to identify potential synergies and to manage trade-offs among different resource user groups and development aims. Although important sector outcomes have been achieved, these outcomes have been undermined by externalities from other sectors. For example, efforts to restore mangroves or support fishers have been undermined by ill-sited ports and unregulated tourism. Governments and the private sector have also missed opportunities to invest in ecosystem Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    3 services to increase profits from seafood harvests and enhance food and nutrition security. In addition, international actors point to a sense of urgency because of the expansion of existing and emerging ocean industries (for example, offshore renewable energy and deep-sea mining) that, together with the negative effects posed by climate change, are threatening the life-sustaining services provided by ocean and coastal resources. The blue economy is also seen as a way to support wider climate change, biodiversity, and circular economy aims. The World Bank adopted a blue economy approach in 2016. Although the World Bank has engaged for decades in marine and coastal development,2 it put forth a blue economy definition and an initial blue economy framework between 2016 and 2017. The World Bank’s 2017 definition of the blue economy is the “sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods, and job creation while preserving the health of ocean ecosystems” (World Bank 2017e). Pursuant to this definition, the World Bank published a series of blue economy analytics at the global, regional, and country levels; became home to a multidonor PROBLUE trust fund that sup- ports the blue economy; and, in 2019, changed the name of its Environment and Natural Resources Global Practice (GP) to Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy (ENB). The World Bank’s support for the blue economy aligns with its support to clients to achieve the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals, especially Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Life below Water), and climate change aims (figure 1.1). Figure 1.1. Timeline of World Bank Engagement in the Blue Economy 2012 UN Conference on 2016 Sustainable Blue Economy 2021 Development Development 2018 World Bank report (Rio+20) Framework PROBLUE created Riding the Blue Wave 2015 2017 2019 Sustainable World Bank blue Environment and Development Goals economy Natural Resources (especially Sustainable definition put GP changes Development Goal 14) forward in name to Environment, World Bank and Natural Resources, UN DESA report and Blue Economy GP The Potential of the Blue Economy Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: GP = Global Practice; UN = United Nations; UN DESA = United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Making Waves  Chapter 1 Evaluation Purpose, Questions, Scope, and Methods The evaluation purpose is to assess how well the World Bank is supporting a blue economy approach to achieve sustainable and inclusive development of ocean and coastal economies. The overarching evaluation question is, How well is the World Bank supporting a blue economy approach to achieve 4 sustainable and inclusive development of ocean and coastal states? The two subquestions are (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? This evaluation was requested by the Board of Executive Directors’ Committee on Development Effectiveness and by World Bank management. Noting that the blue economy is an evolving approach, the World Bank explicitly requested a forward-looking evaluation—that is, an evaluation that aims to help surface early implemen- tation lessons to inform the future development of the World Bank’s blue economy approach. The evaluation scope consists of three parameters: geographic consid- erations, 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 zone (within 200 nautical miles of their shoreline) but not activities in international waters where the World Bank has had any analytic or lending activities (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; n = 84), Country Economic Memorandums (CEMs; n = 46), and Country Climate and Development Reports (CCDRs; n = 23). We also cover all World Bank–published focused blue economy analytics at the global, regional, and country levels (n = 38). 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. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    5 For these sectors, we cover all World Bank advisory services and analytics (ASA) and lending approved between 2016 and 2023. The 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, the evaluation undertook a focused literature review, conducted content analysis of World Bank blue economy–focused analytics and key partner publications, convened and conducted 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 (SCDs, CEMs, and CCDRs) for countries in scope. Structured templates and scoring rubrics were then used to quantify and conduct comparative analyses of these diagnostics. 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. The methods are fully explained in appendix A. Making Waves  Chapter 1 6 1 In recent years, the language of the “large ocean state” has increasingly been used by the leaders of various Pacific and Indian Ocean states as a counterpoint to the usual “small island developing state” nomenclature (Chan 2018). This emerging self-identification of large ocean states juxtaposes their small landmass and populations with the possession of sovereign au- thority over large swaths of the world’s oceans. Such authority is increasingly being exercised in the context of biodiversity conservation through expanding marine protected areas (an element of both the Sustainable Development Goals and the Aichi targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity). The term large ocean state has been deployed in the United Nations General Assembly debates (for example, by Anote Tong, former president of Kiribati) and as the theme of a regional meeting (at the 2012 Pacific Islands Forum summit, hosted by the Cook Islands, under the banner of “Large Ocean Island States: The Pacific Challenge”). In September 2016, when addressing the Annual Congress of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, Tommy E. Remengesau Jr., president of Palau, declared his country not to be a “small island state,” as might be the conventional description for a country of 25,000 people and a land area of only 500 square kilometers, but a large ocean state. The main justification for this was the establishment of the Palau National Marine Sanctuary, which designated 80 percent of Palau’s exclusive economic zone of 600,000 square kilometers as a “no-take zone” entirely closed to fishing activities—an area the size of California and the sixth-largest marine protected area in the world. The remaining 20 percent of Palau’s exclu- sive economic zone would be limited to domestic fishing only, barring foreign fleets in the service of marine protection and biodiversity conservation (Chan 2018).  2  Since the launch of the blue agenda at Rio+20: The United Nations Conference on Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    7 Sustainable Development in 2012, it became apparent that the sustainable development of ocean and coastal resources would require collaboration across nation states, sectors and industry areas, and public-private actors on a larger scale than previously achieved. At that conference, the World Bank launched the Global Partnership for Oceans and subsequently hosted the secretariat until 2015. The partnership focused on the sustainable economic devel- opment of ocean resources, including by supporting the implementation of projects designed to promote sustainable fishing, the protection of coastal and ocean habitats and biodiversity, and the reduction of marine pollution. Trust funds, such as the Global Program on Fisheries, known as PROFISH, helped enable the implementation of this portfolio. 2 | The World Bank’s Articulation of the Blue Economy Highlights As a knowledge broker, the World Bank lifted a progressive blue economy concept onto the world stage, heightening its credibility through blue economy–focused analytics, often financed by bilateral partners. These analytics 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 own analytics and that of key partners. The World Bank’s corporate definition refers to resource preservation, rather than restorative goals; 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. Clearly articulating the holistic purpose of the blue economy is important because clients are using the World Bank’s corporate definition to inform their blue economy strategies, and key partners rely on the World Bank to communicate the more holistic aim in their dialogue with clients. With some exceptions, there is low understanding among World Bank staff of the more holistic meaning of the blue economy. 8   The blue economy is being referenced in many small island developing states country diagnostics (that is, Systematic Country Diagnostics and Country Climate and Development Reports) and it is slowly emerging in those for coastal states, but the comprehensiveness of the concept is low overall. Apart from those for small island developing states, the blue economy concept is not being referenced in Country Economic Memorandums. Whereas focused blue economy analytics have been critical for integrating the blue economy concept in country diagnostics, sector analytic work (for example, on fisheries, waste management, or pollution) has not sufficiently reflected blue economy considerations. 9  This chapter focuses on how well the World Bank is articulating blue economy aims, including in relation to other actors, at the corporate and country levels. To assess how well the World Bank is articulating blue econ- omy aims at the corporate level, we used content analysis to determine the presence, meaning, and evolution of the blue economy concept as expressed in focused World Bank–published blue economy analytic products. To evaluate how well the World Bank is articulating blue economy aims at the corporate level in relation to other actors, we used content analysis to assess how the blue economy concept is articulated in key partner strategies and publications. We then complemented these analyses of partner publications by conducting 24 global blue economy expert interviews. These interviews were conducted with representatives of other agencies and organizations, including PROBLUE donors (Canada, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, and Sweden), the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environment Programme Sustainable Blue Economy Initiative, the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Global Environment Facility, the World Wide Fund for Nature (previously the World Wildlife Fund), the International Coral Reef Initiative, the Ocean Risk and Resilience Action Alliance, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services as well as individual global experts who are helping shape global and country blue economy policies (anonymized information on interviewee selection—ensuring representative viewpoints—is included in appendix A). To assess how well the World Bank is articulating blue economy aims at the country level, we used content analyses, coding templates, and scoring ru- brics to determine the presence and comprehensiveness of the blue economy concept in all 84 SCDs, 46 CEMs, and 23 CCDRs for countries in scope. These diagnostics were chosen because they serve as reference points for client Making Waves  Chapter 2 consultations and are used to set priorities for World Bank Group country engagements (World Bank 2016c; see appendix A for coding templates for each diagnostic; the data package for the coded qualitative data is available on request). Corporate Articulation of the Blue Economy As a knowledge broker, the World Bank lifted a progressive blue economy 10 concept onto the world stage, heightening its credibility through analytics. Beginning in 2016, the World Bank helped lift the blue economy concept out of country conferences into a series of client-facing, focused analytics that enhanced the concept’s credibility and reach. This effect was confirmed by interviews with clients and donor partners. By explicating the concept in its earliest analytic, Toward a Blue Economy: A Promise for Sustainable Growth in the Caribbean (Patil et al. 2016), the World Bank helped lift the concept out of the Eastern Caribbean onto the global stage, including by present- ing the concept, together with Caribbean leaders, at the 27th Conference of the Parties.1 These blue economy analytics included clear purpose state- ments and explanations about the potential of the blue economy to achieve balanced economic, environmental, and social development objectives in ocean and coastal areas. The report stated that the blue economy is “a lens by which to view and develop policy agendas that simultaneously enhance ocean health and economic growth, in a manner consistent with principles of social equity and inclusion” (Patil et al. 2016, 43). Pursuant to its support in the Eastern Caribbean, the World Bank transferred this knowledge to South Asia (Bangladesh) through analytics co-produced with the European Union. The Bangladesh analytic (the second of its kind) refers to the blue economy as “a sustainable ocean economy, in which economic wealth is balanced with the health of ocean ecosystems and their natural assets, and is socially sus- tainable” (Patil et al. 2018, 5). The World Bank also acted globally to facilitate a common understanding of the blue economy concept. By partnering with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the World Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    11 Bank convened a multistakeholder event and copublished the seminal report on the topic, titled The Potential of the Blue Economy: Increasing Long-Term Benefits of the Sustainable Use of Marine Resources for Small Island Developing States and Coastal Least Developed Countries (World Bank and UN DESA 2017). This effort produced a common understanding that the blue econ- omy must prioritize ocean health; it also established parameters for blue economy investments that must (i) provide social and economic benefits for current and future generations; (ii) restore, protect, and maintain the diver- sity, productivity, resilience, core functions, and intrinsic value of marine ecosystems; and (iii) be based on clean technologies, renewable energy, and circular material flows that reduce waste and promote recycling. 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. As indicated in chapter 1, the corporate definition for the blue economy put forth by the World Bank in 2017 is “the sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods, and job creation while preserving the health of ocean ecosystems” (World Bank 2017e). This definition leaves out core tenets of the blue economy concept that are more clearly and comprehensively articulated in the abovementioned analytics. Although the World Bank’s corporate definition references three pillars (growth, livelihoods, and ocean health), the focus on economic growth while preserving the health of the ocean implies that the oceans are in a state of existing good health. The definition lacks references to the restor- ative potential of the blue economy, including efforts to regenerate, restore, and conserve resources, which also deliberately tackle the drivers of deg- radation. The definition also lacks references to inclusion and equity; does not refer to integrated approaches;2 and appears decoupled from pressing food and nutrition security, climate change, biodiversity, and circular econ- omy goals. Alongside the definition, the World Bank put forth a schematic and guidance note referred to as the Blue Economy Development Framework (World Bank 2016a; World Bank Group and European Commission 2021), 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 increas- ingly 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 Making Waves  Chapter 2 stewardship and social equity (box 2.1). In the case of the European Union, this clarification represents a sea change compared with the previous defi- nition. The World Bank has historically partnered with the European Union in its blue economy analytics (the Blue Economy Development Framework was originally produced in partnership with the European Commission). Since 2018, the World Bank has been a signatory to the Sustainable Blue Economy Finance Principles hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme 12 Finance Initiative, which—together with the European Commission, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the World Resources Institute, and the European Investment Bank—aims to support the integration of a set of environmental, social, and governance considerations into blue economy investments.  rticulation of the Holistic Sustainable Blue Economy Aims Box 2.1. A by the Partners The European Union. As part of the European Green Deal, the European Union has transitioned its blue economy approach from one focused on blue growth (on jobs and growth), stated in the 2012 Communication, to one focused on the sustainable blue economy, as articulated in the May 2021 Communication. This represents a fundamental reorientation of policy and objectives: a move away from primarily pur- suing economic growth—”an initiative to harness the untapped potential of Europe’s oceans, seas[,] and coasts for jobs and growth” (European Commission 2012, 2)—to- ward achieving balanced growth while integrating climate change and environmental priorities—”replacing unchecked expansion with clean, climate-proof[,] and sustain- able activities that tread lightly on the marine environment” (European Commission 2021a, 2). Per its new position, the European Union has indicated that “under a sustainable blue economy, maritime and coastal activities reconcile economic devel- opment, improved livelihoods[,] and social inclusion with fighting the climate crisis, protecting biodiversity and ecosystems, using resources responsibly[,] and achieving the zero-pollution ambition” (European Commission 2021b). The United Nations Environment Programme houses the Sustainable Blue Economy Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    13 Initiative and is launching the Sustainable Blue Economy Decision Support and Enabling Framework. The latter states that the sustainable blue economy “increases revenue and enables sustainable growth in the marine economy through enhanced services provided by healthy environments; strengthens livelihoods and food security; ensures fair and equitable access to the oceans’ wealth; and contributes to climate change mitigation through renewable energy and de-carbonizing blue sectors” (UNEP, forthcoming). A sustainable blue economy approach overcomes the disconnected way oceans are managed and is fundamental for addressing the three planetary crises (climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution) and meeting the Sustainable Development Goals. (continued)  rticulation of the Holistic Sustainable Blue Economy Aims Box 2.1. A by the Partners (cont.) The United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative hosts the Sustainable Blue Economy Finance Principles—a global framework developed in 2018 that is co-signed by the World Bank, the European Commission, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the World Resources Institute, and the European Investment Bank. The prin- ciples are designed to guide banks, insurers, and investors in financing a sustainable blue economy in alignment with Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Life below Water). Taken together, the principles offer a road map for ensuring that financial activities and investments in the ocean and coastal sectors are environmentally sustainable and socially equitable. The World Wide Fund for Nature put forth Principles for a Sustainable Blue Economy (2015), which emphasizes the need for environmental restoration and protection to ensure intergenerational economic and social benefits. A sustainable blue econo- my “provides social and economic benefits for current and future generations[;] . . . restores, protects[,] and maintains the diversity, productivity, resilience, core functions, and intrinsic value of marine ecosystems[; and] . . . is based on clean technologies, renewable energy, and circular material flows” (WWF 2015, 4). It also promotes an ap- proach that is inclusive, cooperative, and cross-sectoral based on knowledge sharing and the development and application of standards, guidelines, and best practices. Sources: European Commission 2012, 2021a, 2021b; UNEP 2018, forthcoming; WWF 2015. 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 Making Waves  Chapter 2 to communicate the more holistic aim. The case studies show that cli- ents are using the World Bank’s corporate definition to inform their own blue economy strategies;3 yet these strategies are better at articulating blue growth aims than articulating how triple-bottom-line objectives will be achieved across relevant ministries. Many international, regional, and bilateral development agencies supporting clients with their blue econo- my development also look to the World Bank to communicate holistic blue 14 economy aims as part of their economic dialogue with clients. However, apart from a few key staff, the evaluation found that there is low under- standing among World Bank staff interviewed about the more holistic meaning of the blue economy.4 Articulation of the Blue Economy in Country Diagnostics The blue economy is being referenced in many SIDS SCDs, and the concept is slowly emerging in coastal state SCDs. Eighteen out of the 84 SCDs in scope reference the blue economy, even though all 84 reference at least one ma- rine sector. Seven out of 12 SCDs for SIDS refer to the blue economy (in the Caribbean, Indian Ocean, and West Africa). Between 2016 and 2019, with one exception (Dominican Republic), the blue economy concept was articulated in SCDs of SIDS, which is not surprising since the concept was put forth by coastal countries. Between 2020 and 2023, with the rollout of increased blue economy analytics, the blue economy concept began to appear in the SCDs of coastal states in Albania, Indonesia, and Kenya (2020); the Arab Republic of Egypt, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, and Namibia (2021); Côte d’Ivoire (2022); and Togo and Panama (2023). The blue economy concept is referenced in five CEMs, of which four are SIDS (Cabo Verde, the Comoros, Mauritius, and São Tomé and Príncipe), and one is a coastal state (Albania). Although SCDs are beginning to reference the blue economy, the comprehen- siveness is low overall in many SCDs that reference it. A total of 5 out Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    15 of 18 SCDs that refer to the blue economy (Kenya, Mauritius, OECS, São Tomé and Príncipe, and the Seychelles) articulated well the need to reconcile economic, environmental, and social aims through cross-sectoral coordi- nation and planning processes that identify synergies and address sector trade-offs (figure 2.1). These SCDs speak to the need to transition away from sector-siloed approaches. They also recognize the connection between ma- rine and terrestrial systems (for example, the way solid waste management or tourism affects coastal and ocean environments or the way that agricul- ture and deforestation contribute to runoff, sedimentation, pollution, and eutrophication in local coastal systems). The OECS SCD presents a best-case example of how to embed a blue economy approach into development plan- ning: it focuses on the need to balance growth, environmental sustainability, and equity aims; sets milestones for achieving blue economy aims; and highlights associated financing options. The remaining SCDs (13 out of 18) reference the blue economy but continue to address sector issues in silos. Although emerging blue economy opportunities (for example, offshore en- ergy) are cited, there is neither a discussion of sectoral coordination nor an analysis of how to address trade-offs, especially between marine development 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, aquacul- ture, 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).  rticulation of the Blue Economy in Systematic Country Figure 2.1. A Diagnostics 70 66 (79%) 60 50 SCDs (no.) 40 30 20 13 (15%) 10 5 (6%) 0 Score 0 Score 1 Score 2 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: The number of in-scope SCDs is 84. SCD scoring 1: Albania, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Cabo Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, the Dominican Republic, the Arab Republic of Egypt, Indonesia, Jamaica, Maldives, Making Waves  Chapter 2 Namibia, Panama, and Togo. SCD scoring 2: Kenya, Mauritius, Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States countries, São Tomé and Príncipe, and the Seychelles. Scoring rubric: 0 = SCD does not reference the blue economy; 1 = SCD explicitly refers to the blue economy but lacks full articulation of commonly understood meaning, tends to treat sectors in silos, and neglects to identify trade-offs; 2 = SCD com- prehensively explains the blue economy as a way of balancing economic, environmental, and social aims and refers to cross-sectoral coordination, planning, and identification of synergies and trade-offs. SCD = Systematic Country Diagnostic. Few CCDRs articulate how a blue economy approach can support national climate change and development goals. CCDRs are new core Bank Group di- agnostic reports that have the objective to help countries prioritize the most 16 impactful actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and boost adaptation while delivering on broader development goals. Per figure 2.2, only 7 out of 23 CCDRs (for countries in scope) refer to the blue economy; 3 of the CCDRs that do not refer to the blue economy are for countries for which this topic is a key government priority (Indonesia, Morocco, and South Africa), and 2 CCDRs are for countries where the blue economy is explicitly articulated in the SCD. For example, in Indonesia, climate change is woven throughout the country’s Blue Economy Roadmap, yet the CCDR neither refers to the blue economy nor provides much context on coastal or marine issues (as opposed to forests), missing a critical opportunity to diagnose the policy integration and coordinated action needed to achieve blue economy–related climate change aims. Across the cohort, almost no CCDRs discuss the poten- tial of blue carbon toward achieving nationally determined commitments. For example, mangroves, except for Indonesia, are not identified as part of CCDR priorities, which speaks to a gap in identifying nature-based solutions in relation to achieving climate change goals. Conversely, 4 out of 23 CCDRs articulate clear links between marine activities and climate action (scored as 2 in figure 2.2), with Ghana being a best practice example. The Ghana CCDR identifies a blue economy approach as a way to achieve the climate change objectives articulated in the CCDR (box 2.2).  rticulation of the Blue Economy Approach in Ghana’s Box 2.2. A Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    17 Country Climate and Development Report Ghana’s Country Climate and Development Report advocates for a blue economy approach to enhance climate resilience along the coastline. In the short term, it recommends the establishment of a blue economy framework to maximize socioeconomic benefits and protect blue carbon to support mitigation goals. It cites the need to apply integrated coastal zone management tools for coordinated action and clear delineation of responsibilities across ministries. In the long term, the Country Climate and Development Report calls for a transformative shift from carbon-intensive offshore oil and gas to renewable marine-based energy and a move from infrastructure-based resilience approaches to nature-based solutions. This transition requires policy reforms, capacity development, and innovative financial mechanisms (such as blue bonds and carbon markets) to fund the shift (continued)  rticulation of the Blue Economy Approach in Ghana’s Box 2.2. A Country Climate and Development Report (cont.) toward a sustainable and resilient blue economy, ensuring a balanced approach that maximizes economic benefits while addressing climate challenges. Source: World Bank 2022e.  rticulation of the Blue Economy in Country Climate and Figure 2.2. A Development Reports 2 CCDR score 1 0 il a l a s a . a s ina sh z on in bia he sia aq an ri co an ru e ica ol iye m ep n ra ue e nt ade Bra ero Ch om Sa one Ir ord ibe roc kist Pe pin Afr ng ürk t Na b R Gha du biq g l m l 5 d J L o Pa ilip th A T Vie Ara n m Ar ang Ca Co G In M Ph Sou , Ho oza B t yp M Eg Country Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: The number of in-scope CCDRs is 23. Scoring: 0 = no articulation of the blue economy; 1 = explicit reference to the blue economy (coastal and marine sectors may be referenced, but there is no articu- lation of how to accurately apply the blue economy concept as a way to achieve climate change and development goals); 2 = explicit reference to the blue economy and demonstration of a comprehensive understanding of the potential of the blue economy approach as a way to achieve climate change and Making Waves  Chapter 2 development goals. CCDR = Country Climate and Development Report; G5 = Group of Five. CCDRs also only partially identify risks posed by climate change to marine and coastal areas, and there is scant reference to how emerging blue econ- omy sectors will affect the marine environment. A total of 74 percent of CCDRs (in the countries in scope) identified at least one marine sector at risk from climate change. Risks posed to fisheries and coastal development (that is, housing, industry, and infrastructure at risk from flooding located on the 18 coast) were referenced in approximately half of the CCDRs. However, there were few references, and no robust analyses, of the effects of climate change on other sectors, such as ports and shipping (figure 2.3). Similarly, there is very little discussion across all CCDRs on how some sectors—proposed as part of countries’ mitigation or adaptation strategies—will affect the marine environment, including the development of offshore renewables or the use of desalination plants for water security.  ountry Climate and Development Reports That Reference Figure 2.3. C Climate Risks to Blue Economy Sectors Solid waste management Oil and gas Renewables 1 Maritime transport 3 Tourism 3 Sector Desalination or water supply 4 Aquaculture 6 Biodiversity and conservation 7 Coastal development 12 and infrastructure Fisheries 12 Country Climate and Development Reports (no.) Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Focused blue economy analytics, largely financed by donors, have been critical for articulating the blue economy in country diagnostics. Almost all Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    19 (27 out of 29, or 93 percent) of the country diagnostics (SCDs, CCDRs, and CEMs) that refer to the blue economy had prior or parallel access to blue economy–focused analytics. In the two cases where the country diagnos- tic referred to the blue economy without the benefit of underlying focused analytics, there either was a dedicated senior environmental staff member engaged (Panama) or the World Bank and the government were engaged in dialogue as part of the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (Namibia).5 Sector analytics, including those focused on fisheries, marine pollution, and waste, have been insufficient to support the transfer of the blue economy concept into country diagnostics. Twenty countries have had access to spe- cific sector analytics focused on a coastal or marine sector, such as fisheries, pollution, and waste management. These analytics did not make explicit the links to the blue economy, and none of the country diagnostics of the countries that had these sector analytics refer to the blue economy. A total of 80 percent of the focused blue economy analytics that informed country diagnostics were financed or co-financed by bilateral donors, including the European Commission, the Commonwealth, the Nordic Development Fund, the German Agency for International Cooperation, and the PROBLUE trust fund. By way of contrast, the World Bank has tended to fund sector analytics. Articulation of the Blue Economy in the World Bank’s Evolution 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 “Ending Poverty on a Livable Planet: Report to Governors on World Bank Evolution,” 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 and important land-sea links. Making Waves  Chapter 2 20 1 For more information, see https://live.worldbank.org/en/event/2022/cop27-unleashing-blue- economy-caribbean. 2 The PROBLUE trust fund, which is administered by the World Bank, defines the blue econ- omy as the sustainable and integrated development of economic sectors in a healthy ocean (World Bank 2022l). Although this definition acknowledges the need for an integrated approach in the blue economy, it exhibits most of the same limitations as outlined in the Corporate Articulation of the Blue Economy section in chapter 2.  3 For example, at the regional level, the African Union Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources—the regional body charged with helping African countries draft their blue econ- omy strategies—refers to the World Bank’s definition in its country-facing engagements. The government of Belize indicated that the World Bank’s definition of the blue economy is the definition of the blue economy at its official launch of their Blue Economy Development Policy and Strategy and Maritime Economy Roadmap. Indonesia’s 2023 Blue Economy Roadmap also cites the World Bank’s definition.  4 Interviews with staff across the World Bank in the country case studies and in covered sectors demonstrate inconsistent awareness of and, in a few cases, a lack of buy-in for the blue economy concept. This finding is further exemplified by the limited integration of the blue economy concept into the reviewed client-facing country diagnostics (that is, Systematic Country Diagnostics, Country Economic Memorandums, Country Climate and Development Reports), as shown in the Articulation of the Blue Economy in Country Diagnostics section in chapter 2.  Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    21 5 There are also two cases where the World Bank performed blue economy—focused analytics where the blue economy has not been articulated in country diagnostics; however, Country Climate and Development Reports have not yet been conducted (Costa Rica and the Pacific Islands). In these countries, it may be anticipated that the forthcoming Country Climate and Development Reports will use the blue economy concept.  3 | The World Bank’s Operationalization of the Blue Economy Highlights The governments of case study countries are just beginning to establish coherent policy, strategy, and institutional mechanisms for effective blue economy development. The World Bank relevantly identified and addressed policy and institutional issues in the Eastern Caribbean to help harmonize and develop blue economy policies and practices. Elsewhere, the World Bank has mainly used sector entry points that are achieving sector results but are not being leveraged to support policy and institutional development critical for achieving blue economy aims. There have been missed opportunities to support blue economy development after the World Bank launched influential analytics at the country level. Engagement challenges are associated with the limited number of staff with blue economy expertise, staff rotations, and a lack of Country Management Unit buy-in for the concept. The World Bank has helped strengthen sector platforms at the regional level, but these efforts have yet to use a blue economy approach to identify cross-sector opportunities and address sector trade-offs. There have been missed opportunities to support regional bodies that are developing blue economy strategies. Where the World Bank has partnered regionally, its support has also sometimes been out of step with organizations’ capacities and mandates. 22   The designs of small-scale fisheries projects are increasingly aligned with progressive global fisheries guidance that is capable of achieving blue economy aims. Consistent application of this guidance can promote more holistic designs for some projects that retain a growth aim and the enhanced integration of climate change considerations. The World Bank’s global plastics analytics and estimation models are being used by policy makers to tackle plastic pollution. The World Bank has used development policy lending to address marine plastics issues in small island developing states, but this policy support has yet to be extended to coastal nations that rank as major contributors to plastic waste production. The World Bank’s blue tourism paper can support more holistic tourism approaches in marine and coastal tourism operations that contribute to local economic development and jobs, but with few exceptions, these operations pay insufficient attention to upstream environmental issues, such as water use and waste. Aspects of the blue economy in the marine transport space—such as decarbonization and greening of ports—have been covered in analytics, but operational uptake is low. PROBLUE has been instrumental in helping the World Bank produce blue economy analyses within advisory and operations. PROBLUE has had a pronounced focus on marine pollution with increasing thematic diversification in line with blue economy aims. PROBLUE funds are just beginning to finance blue economy activities in investments outside of the environment sector. PROBLUE promotes gender integration in its grant applications, but targeted gender expertise is needed in operations to ensure gender outcomes are achieved and measured. 23  This chapter focuses on how well the World Bank is operationalizing blue economy aims at the country, regional, sector, and corporate lev- els. At the country and regional levels, we assess how well the World Bank is supporting enabling conditions—policies, institutions, planning, and blue bonds—for blue economy development by presenting cross-cutting evidence from the nine case studies. At the sector level, we then present the findings of our portfolio review analyses to show how well the World Bank is adapting its approach in four established sectors—small-scale fisheries, plastics and marine pollution, marine and coastal tourism, and maritime transport—to achieve blue economy aims. At the corporate level, we assess the extent to which the PROBLUE trust fund has supported the integration of the blue economy across sectors. Enabling Blue Economy Development at the Country Level Policy and Institutions The governments of all case study countries are just beginning to establish coherent policy, strategy, and institutional mechanisms for effective blue economy development. The World Bank’s global blue economy analytics cite the need for the World Bank to act upstream to identify and address the governance and institutional issues required to achieve blue economy aims (Patil et al. 2016; World Bank 2021d). This need to act upstream is because policies governing ocean and coastal resources are fragmented and characterized by legal, regulatory, and jurisdictional gaps (Patil et al. 2016; World Bank 2021d). Ministries often have overlapping mandates on the blue economy and few incentives to cooperate, rather than compete, for control over relevant sectors. For example, Belize has at least 16 different laws and Making Waves  Chapter 3 regulations directly affecting the management of the country’s coastal and marine areas that need to be reconciled as part of the government’s blue economy policy development aims. In addition, Belize’s newly established Ministry of Blue Economy and Civil Aviation brings together some institutions responsible for the ocean economy, including the Fisheries Department and the Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute, but not others, such as marine and coastal tourism and mangrove management 24 managed by the Forest Department. In Bangladesh, there is a lack of consensus on the institutional leadership of the blue economy despite the creation of a blue economy cell within the Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources, leading to power struggles among different ministries. In Cabo Verde, the Ministry of the Sea and the Ministry of Tourism and Transport have not agreed on who is responsible for tourism under a blue economy framing. In the Seychelles, the Tourism Department has not been included in the blue economy development process that has mainly focused on blue finance and fish. In India and Kenya, even though national ministries have important regulatory, monitoring, and guiding policy functions, they do not have a role in policy implementation, which is decentralized to the state and local governments. The World Bank relevantly identified and addressed policy and institutional issues in the Eastern Caribbean to enable the harmonization and development of blue economy policies and practices. Funded by the Global Environment Facility, the World Bank’s Caribbean Regional Oceanscape Project (CROP 2017–21)—which covered Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines—achieved its aim of strengthening capacity for ocean governance. Although the Eastern Caribbean states had indigenously put forth the St. George’s Declaration of Principles for Environmental Sustainability in the OECS—the existing vision of the blue economy in the OECS—support was needed to translate Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    25 that vision into regional and national policies, produce national asset accounts, and harmonize and update sector legislation. CROP supported, in a participatory manner, the development of regional and national marine spatial plans (endorsed at ministerial levels), national ocean governance committees, and regional and national ocean governance policies and laws (including model national fisheries and pollution laws) needed to achieve effective blue economy development.1 The marine spatial planning (MSP) processes helped identify and prioritize blue economy investments in line with shared principles. Although no private investment was forthcoming, these processes helped mobilize other donor financing (Irish and Norwegian) and informed the development of a blue economy–focused development policy financing series to address marine pollution, among other aims. CROP’s focus on governance and data-driven decision-making was, as articulated in the Implementation Completion and Results Report, “a model to emulate” (World Bank 2022b). With few exceptions, the World Bank has mainly used sectoral entry points that have not been sufficiently leveraged to support blue economy policy and institutional development. The World Bank has seized opportunities to engage in sector operations that can have a positive effect on the blue econ- omy; however, in most cases, it has not seized the opportunity to leverage these sector operations to engage on blue economy policy or institutional development. In Belize, the World Bank’s 2012 technical assistance cites opportunities offered by the development of a blue economy approach, but the World Bank did not use its subsequent Marine Conservation and Climate Adaptation Project (2015–20) as an entry point to engage with the government on blue economy development. The Marine Conservation and Climate Adaptation Project was under implementation when the World Bank rolled out its blue economy agenda. A problem that arose during the Marine Conservation and Climate Adaptation Project was the displace- ment of fishers because of expansion of protected areas supported by the project—a problem that could have been prevented, or solved, using a blue economy approach. In Kenya, the World Bank has engaged in fisher- ies operations, which are achieving enhanced local fisheries management (including through spatial planning) and community livelihoods, but not on blue economy strategy or institutional development. Our cabinet-level in- terviews confirmed that the Kenyan government needs support from donors to help address gaps (for example, participation, sector coverage, and gen- der gaps) in the development of their draft blue economy strategy and its implementation, especially in coastal counties receiving support from the World Bank’s fisheries operation. In Indonesia, the World Bank has made and continues to make important contributions to biodiversity protection, Making Waves  Chapter 3 carbon storage, and social welfare through the Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Project (2004–present) and the Mangroves for Coastal Resilience Project (2022–present), but it has not engaged on blue economy policy development. The challenge in Indonesia is that the World Bank is effectively engaging with the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, but the Blue Economy Roadmap is being rolled out by the Ministry of National Development Planning through a process that has minimal consultation 26 and that is opaque about ecological and social considerations in relation to its blue growth aims. In Cabo Verde, the World Bank has engaged in tourism and fisheries through the Resilient Tourism and Blue Economy Development in Cabo Verde Project (2022–present), which seeks to rele- vantly achieve sector synergies by improving the quality and diversity of local fish for the tourism sector and by improving market and credit access for the fisheries sector. It is also financing a development policy financing series for Cabo Verde’s Resilient and Equitable Recovery (2022–24) that supports zoning, licensing, and other regulatory aims but that has dropped a prior action related to MSP integral to achieving higher-order blue econ- omy policy aims. In Morocco, the World Bank is supporting a blue economy Program-for-Results that is focused on developing institutional frameworks to improve the integrated management of natural resources in line with blue economy aims. Critical gaps between the launch of influential blue economy analytics and operational support have also hindered blue economy development. Across all the case study countries, World Bank analytic work on the blue econ- omy, funded by PROBLUE or other trust funds, is well regarded by clients and has often been key to shaping the blue economy narrative.2 However, progress in taking forward this diagnostic and analytic work in blue econ- omy policies and strategies either has stalled or has not been reinforced after initial engagements are completed. For example, in Bangladesh, the Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    27 World Bank and the European Union helped the government develop a blue economy strategy between 2016 and 2018, including by facilitating awareness across ministries. After the departure of a key World Bank staff member, the blue economy development process has stalled. Although members of the government have a general understanding of the blue economy concept, it is loosely articulated regarding the development of coastal sectors without the spatial dimension, with limited cross-sector co- ordination and no real appreciation of the triple bottom line. Recognizing the need to rekindle dialogue, the World Bank country office formed a blue economy team in 2023, but it is taking time to gain traction. A similar sit- uation occurred in Sri Lanka after the launch in 2017 of Managing Natural Wealth for Resilient Growth and Livelihoods: Unleashing the Potential of the Blue Economy. In the OECS, although the World Bank effectively supported blue economy policy and institutional development through CROP at the regional level, it prematurely transitioned from a focus on broader blue economy governance to national sector-level investments (waste man- agement, tourism, and fish) and associated sectoral policy development in the follow-on investment operation. Although sector investment at the country level is necessary, the governance elements of CROP associated with the foundations of the blue economy needed reinforcement because the national policies and governance committees resulting from CROP have yet to be endorsed, formally adopted, and implemented by govern- ments. Maintaining country engagement is important because 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. Integrated Coastal Zone Management and Marine Spatial Planning The World Bank is not sufficiently leveraging its 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, inclusive, and iterative governance approach to coastal development implemented by regional or local governments with wide stakeholder participation. ICZM institutes legal and institutional mechanisms to ensure that coastal development supports environmental and social goals and minimizes conflict (European Commission 1991; European Parliament and Making Waves  Chapter 3 Council of the European Union 2002; Post and Lundin 1996). The World Bank published its ICZM guidelines in 1996 to guide its operational work (Post and Lundin 1996), including in nine lending activities in Albania, Belize, Egypt, India, Kenya, Morocco, Namibia, West Africa, and Viet Nam, implemented during the evaluation period (of which seven are closed and two are near closure). In all projects, ICZM has, to varying extents, improved coastal management by resolving policy and institutional and 28 jurisdictional issues and achieved environmental and social benefits, including coastal land and resource restoration, pollution reduction, job creation and increases in local incomes, and more stable coastal environments conducive to private investment.3 Yet, whereas Riding the Blue Wave: Applying the Blue Economy Approach to World Bank Operations (World Bank 2021d) refers to ICZM as an important blue economy tool, the World Bank has not updated its guidance in almost 30 years; with two exceptions (Viet Nam and West Africa), no new lending in coastal areas since 2018 incorporates ICZM tools. Rather, in other projects, the World Bank is supporting a version of MSP that is top-down, focused on investment planning (as indicated in its 2022 MSP tool kit), and that often primarily centers on the fisheries sector. This is the case, for example, in Kenya and Morocco, where the World Bank has not created effective links or alignment between ICZM and MSP approaches. The literature indicates that ICZM and MSP need to come together for sustainable blue economy development. The Independent Evaluation Group, however, identified only one project that creates explicit links between these two approaches (in Viet Nam; see box 3.1).  inking Integrated Coastal Zone Management and Marine Box 3.1. L Spatial Planning Processes to Ensure the Success of the Blue Economy Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    29 In Viet Nam, through the programmatic advisory services and analytics (Enhancing Environmental Sustainability and Resilience, 2018–22), the World Bank has articulat- ed how to use both integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) and marine spatial planning (MSP) approaches to support blue economy development. As depicted in a report produced by the World Bank’s advisory services and analytics (figure B3.1.1), the success of the blue economy depends on effective planning, identification, and man- agement of trade-offs at multiple levels to achieve desired economic, environmental, and social outcomes. (continued)  inking Integrated Coastal Zone Management and Marine Box 3.1. L Spatial Planning Processes to Ensure the Success of the Blue Economy (cont.)  lignment between MSP and ICZM in Viet Nam’s Blue Figure B3.1.1. A Economy • This process spatially prioritizes use and protection of coastal and marine areas and their services. • Both MSP and ICM or ICZM processes aim at prioritization and allocation of coastal and marine resource uses in space and time to achieve desired MARINE SPATIAL economic, environmental, cultural, and social PLANNING outcomes. INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS • This integrated framework covers policy, governance, and regulatory solutions, including economic development BLUE ECONOMY • The government leads with stakeholder input. ASSESSMENT • Economic value and development of coastal and marine environment is maximized in a sustainable manner. • Blue economy development must be consistent with MSP and ICM or ICZM to ensure trade-offs or impacts are understood and prioritized. • The government has a leading role in early assessment, but assessment must move beyond the government to succeed. Source: Adapted from World Bank 2022h. Note: ICM = integrated coastal management; ICZM = integrated coastal zone management; MSP = marine spatial planning. In Morocco, the World Bank effectively piloted the ICZM approach at the local level through a Global Environment Facility project (2012–17), and supported ICZM policies Making Waves  Chapter 3 and regional coastal plans through the Green Growth development policy financing series (2014–16) and technical assistance (2020). The Global Environment Facility pilot demonstrated the successful application of the ICZM approach by integrating ICZM in local development plans and piloting investments in coastal resource management, which helped restore 500 hectares of land and created local jobs with sustained income benefits. The development policy financing series supported the approval of the coastal law and legislation on illegal fishing, and the technical assistance helped 30 (continued)  inking Integrated Coastal Zone Management and Marine Box 3.1. L Spatial Planning Processes to Ensure the Success of the Blue Economy (cont.) prepare the first regional coastal plan (in Rabat-Salé-Kénitra). More recently, the World Bank has supported MSP by training the government in MSP approaches and providing technical assistance to the Maritime Fisheries Department to use MSP in the creation of a marine protected area for fisheries management in the Souss-Massa region. However, having the pilot led by one sectoral ministry and focusing primarily on one sector (fisheries) deviates from the more multidisciplinary and integrated ICZM approach. In Kenya’s coastal counties, the World Bank used an ICZM approach (in the Kenya Coastal Development Project, 2011–17) to support sustainable fisheries management, with a focus on increasing incomes and effective natural resource management. The project used integrated conservation and land use plans—a participatory planning mechanism implemented at the local level—to increase awareness and influence behavior for enhanced fisheries and natural resource management. In a follow-on project, the Kenya Marine Fisheries and Socio-Economic Development Project (2020–present) continues to focus on community welfare, through fisheries co-management arrangements, while also supporting national MSP. The latter effort discontinues work on integrated conservation and land use planning and does not Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    31 make explicit how local planning processes will feed into national MSP and decision-making. This is especially important in a country like Kenya, whose constitution devolves responsibilities for coastal development to the local level. Sources: Independent Evaluation Group; World Bank 2022h. The World Bank’s First Blue Bond The world’s first blue bond (supported by the World Bank in the Seychelles) brought blue finance to the global stage but does little to demonstrate how capital markets can support the development of the blue economy. The Seychelles issued the first sovereign blue bond of $15 million in 2018, fa- cilitated by the World Bank. The World Bank defines a blue bond as “a debt instrument issued by governments, development banks[,] or others to raise capital from impact investors to finance marine and ocean-based projects that have positive environmental, economic[,] and climate benefits” (World Bank 2018c). The objective of the blue bond, according to project docu- mentation, is to demonstrate the potential for countries to harness capital markets for financing the sustainable and inclusive use and protection of marine resources. But the bond depended significantly on a World Bank par- tial guarantee of $5 million and a highly concessional $5 million loan from the Global Environment Facility Non-Grant Instrument Pilot. Therefore, al- though a highly innovative but concessional Blue Grants Fund was effective in piloting sustainable marine activities (for example, seaweed cultivation, oyster farming, pollution abatement, research and conservation activities), the effectiveness of the bond’s loan component (the Blue Investment Fund) was negatively affected by a lack of local investors, due in part to high collat- eral and substantial down payment requirements. The fund is supporting an established investor in the fisheries sector but not other diversified sustain- able blue economy opportunities, such as those piloted through the grants. The scale of the fund also likely limited the participation of mainstream institutional investors, who typically seek different incentive structures. The monitoring and compliance management framework is also not suffi- cient to ensure that the bond remains aligned with blue economy objectives and sustainability principles (March et al. 2024). Enabling Blue Economy Development at the Regional Level The varying mandates and capacities of regional organizations have been a key determinant of success for blue economy development, especially in the context of the OECS. The World Bank’s support for blue economy de- Making Waves  Chapter 3 velopment in the Eastern Caribbean was effective because the OECS—the regional implementing body for CROP—has high technical capacity in the area of the blue economy, long-standing relationships with member states, and a wide remit (extending to environmental, health, social, and econom- ic policy areas). Furthermore, the homogeneity of the Eastern Caribbean islands makes managing opportunities and trade-offs relatively consis- tent. This example stands in stark contrast to the Pacific Islands Regional 32 Oceanscape Program, where project implementation arrangements called on Forum Fisheries Agency—a regional fisheries body—to take on gover- nance activities necessary for blue economy development that went beyond their technical mandate. Although the World Bank has helped strengthen sector platforms at the regional level, these efforts have not yet introduced a blue economy lens. The World Bank has worked to build or strengthen regional platforms— including the West Africa Coastal Areas Management Program in West Africa and regional fisheries bodies through the West Africa Regional Fisheries Program, South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Governance and Shared Growth, and Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program—and to help strengthen the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ capacity for addressing marine plastics. Although these platforms do not have an official mandate to engage in the various sectors that fall under the blue economy approach, the World Bank’s support could be anchored in a blue economy lens to promote coordination and coherence—and to identify opportunities—between the disparate agendas (between fisheries, coastal resilience, marine plastic pollution, and so on). There have also been missed opportunities to support regional bodies de- veloping 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 man- Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    33 agement organizations, and ocean governance bodies. In Africa, there are several regional bodies that are contemporaneously developing blue economy strategies. These include the African Union Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, and the East African Community. The evaluation found that each organization is prioritizing a subset of blue economy aims in their strategies rather than balancing these aims and that members would welcome World Bank support for knowledge sharing, strategy harmonization, and capacity building for blue economy policy development but that this aid has not been forthcoming.4 In cases where the World Bank partners with regional organizations influ- ential to the blue economy, its support has sometimes been out of step with the organizations’ capacities and mandates. As discussed, in the Pacific, the World Bank ineffectively engaged a regional fisheries organization to address ocean governance issues, a remit that exceeded its mandate. Conversely, although the Indian Ocean Commission in the southwest Indian Ocean has a comprehensive understanding of the blue economy and capacity to facilitate effective knowledge sharing among member countries, the World Bank relied on it to deliver regional fisheries activities that exceeded its sector technical capacity, and thus the project has underdelivered. Adapting Established Sectors to Achieve Blue Economy Aims Blue economy development requires traditional sectors to transition away from unsustainable approaches toward activities that seek to achieve a triple bottom line. Blue economy development calls for transitions in coastal and oceanic sectors, requiring “new practices and approaches that can both enhance the sustainability of these sectors and limit, to the extent possible, the negative impacts they have on ocean health” (World Bank 2021d, 18). It also requires policies that actively seek out opportunities for sector syn- ergies that maximize benefits and address trade-offs. For example, in the Philippines, efforts to protect and restore mangroves have helped rejuvenate fish stocks while protecting elements of the country’s pearl industry from the negative effects of disasters caused by natural hazards. We use a review of relevant literature (including internal and external publications) to un- derstand and explain the challenges facing four key sectors within the blue economy—small-scale fisheries, plastics and marine pollution, marine and coastal tourism, and maritime transport infrastructure—and, relatedly, the way a blue economy approach is envisioned to address these. We then use portfolio review analyses to review the World Bank sector portfolios (ASA Making Waves  Chapter 3 and lending), where we examine sector results and the extent to which sec- tors are transforming in line with blue economy principles. Small-Scale Fisheries Capture fisheries are essential to the well-being of millions of vulnerable households spread across most coastal nations. However, globally, fish stocks 34 are massively depleted. Fisheries contribute to food and nutrition security, employment, and economic development (Chuenpagdee and Kerezi 2022; Neiland et al. 2016) and can produce comparatively low-carbon protein for human consumption (Parker et al. 2018). In many regions, small-scale fish- eries are fundamental, providing affordable protein and micronutrients that are difficult to replicate (Arthur et al. 2022), and they can be the buffer be- tween precarious livelihoods and destitution (Belhabib, Sumaila, and Pauly 2015). Economic benefits extend for hundreds of miles along trading routes locally and globally. For example, small-scale fisheries represent 40 percent of global seafood capture, employ 90 percent of the sector’s workforce, and are critical for improving gender equity because women make up 50 percent of the postharvest labor force—for example, processing, transport, sales, and so on (FAO, Duke University, and WorldFish 2023). However, between 30 and 35 percent of fish stocks globally remain overfished, and about 60 percent are fully fished with no potential for increased production (Link and Watson 2019; Ye and Gutierrez 2017). Small-scale fisheries in lower- and middle-in- come countries struggle to maintain their existence and are vulnerable to climate change (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2018; World Bank 2019a). Investment in fisheries management is beneficial and necessary, but en- abling sustainable fishing is complex and requires a blue economy approach. Effective fisheries management can lead to sustainable fisheries (Hilborn et al. 2020), and investment in improved fisheries outcomes will increase resilience and reduce poverty. Progress takes time, however, as the causes of Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    35 unsustainability are myriad and connected. Poverty, political and economic marginalization, depleted stocks and habitats, competition for space, and, in some cases, corruption are common contributing factors (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2018). Progress, therefore, requires multiple factors to be addressed, including factors beyond the remit of traditional fisheries management. Fisheries, sustainability requires cross-sectoral alignment that emphasizes sustainable development, social inclusion, and environmental recovery—in other words, a blue economy approach. Where fisheries are unsustainable, progress will involve managing trade- offs. Although fish stock health depends on the wider environment, the activity of fishing is often a primary driver of depletion (IPBES 2019). Shifting trajectories from unsustainable to sustainable involves transfer- ring short- to medium-term costs onto those most dependent on the fished resources (Bladon, Greig, and Okamura 2022). Hence, management measures and interventions that restrict fishing are often resisted and are political- ly sensitive (Oyanedel, Gelcich, and Milner-Gulland 2020). Interventions need to seek sustainability across all outcomes—ecological, economic, and social—which may require social protection and labor instruments to com- pensate for costs and to incentivize behavioral change (Bladon, Greig, and Okamura 2022). The World Bank has supported a steady stream of analytics and lending in the fisheries sector, which is the subject of this assessment. The World Bank provided 43 ASA and lending projects focused on fisheries development be- tween 2016 and 2023. There were 13 ASA and technical assistance products that included fisheries analyses, of which 8 were completed and 5 are ongo- ing, and 39 lending projects with a focus or co-focus on fisheries (including 36 investment project financing, 2 development policy financing, and 1 Program-for-Results), of which 12 were closed and 27 are active. Projects were widely dispersed geographically, with most projects located in the East Asia and Pacific, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Middle East and North Africa Regions. The World Bank has put forth progressive global fisheries management guidance capable of supporting the blue economy goals that is increasingly reflected in the design of investments projects focused on small-scale fisheries. The World Bank published a new Fisheries Sector Assessment Toolkit in 2021 that progressively and explicitly includes social, ecological, and economic criteria and that has the potential to improve the treatment of resource sustainability and social protection, alongside economic development, in sector operations. This guidance is reflected in analytic support in Myanmar (2020–21), where the World Bank progressively set out Making Waves  Chapter 3 to make a business case for improved fisheries governance, promoting good fisheries 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. For example, in Senegal, focal areas 36 include intersectoral collaboration, resource resilience, and more inclusive governance, and in the Philippines, fisheries management, diversified livelihoods, conservation, and climate resilience feature. 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 consistent and holistic treatment of sector issues and equal consideration of social, ecological, and economic outcomes in the ongoing and future portfolio. Some projects focused on small-scale fisheries and aquaculture that have been concurrently approved are not well aligned with 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 Grenada and St. Vincent and the Grenadines (2017–present), Kiribati (2018–19), and India (2022–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. The World Bank is also not sufficiently testing its assumptions about fisher behavior as part of a wider blue economy approach. Blue economy devel- Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    37 opment requires an assessment of trade-offs (between biodiversity and climate change goals and marine resource extraction, for example) and a consideration of how to compensate vulnerable resource users under chang- ing circumstances. Of small-scale fisheries lending operations, 75 percent include livelihood components. A key assumption associated with the de- sign of these components is that fishing pressure can be reduced by offering income-generating opportunities (outside of fishing, such as in tourism, agriculture, or agroforestry), alongside other management efforts. However, these project theories are ambiguous as to whether they intend to have fishers shift completely away from fishing to alternative forms of economic activity or to have them fish less while supplementing their income. This distinction is important because experience shows that it can be quite diffi- cult to move individuals who have engaged in catch fishing as their primary form of livelihood away from fishing on a permanent basis (Crawford 2002). World Bank projects measure participation rates, but less than half measure economic outcomes from livelihood activities, and none specifically assess the links between these livelihood activities and marine resource health (for example, reduced pressure on the ecosystem, fish stocks, and so on), includ- ing through studies. The World Bank’s causal theory in this space needs to be tested because studies show the following: 1. Even if workers are successful in acquiring skills to engage in new sectors, they may diversify their livelihood activities without reducing fishing (Brugère, Holvoet, and Allison 2008). 2. Small-scale fishing is tied to identity and self-worth—individuals may not be willing to exit because of stock declines, even when equal or better op- portunities are available (Blythe 2015; Knudsen 2016; Muallil et al. 2011; Pollnac, Pomeroy, and Harkes 2001). 3. Additional sources of income have enhanced the well-being of fishers, but they also contribute to additional pressure on nearshore resources (Epstein et al. 2022) and can reduce the likelihood of fishery exit in the long term (Slater, Napigkit, and Stead 2013). 4. Diversification reduces the risk of livelihood failure; thus, it can sup- plement and complement fishing activity that might not otherwise be economically viable because of factors such as seasonality or lack of credit (Allison and Ellis 2001). 5. Fishing is an enjoyable leisure activity for many, and increased income from alternative sources can increase the availability of time to engage in fishing (Reddy et al. 2013; Walsh, Groves, and Nagavarapu 2010). Making Waves  Chapter 3 Plastics and Marine Pollution Marine plastic pollution is a chronic global problem that has reached a crisis level, with effects that are compromising ocean and human health and the potential of the blue economy. The productivity, viability, profitability, and safety of key blue economy sectors, including fishing, aquaculture, tourism, and heritage, are all diminished by plastic pollution, with coastal commu- 38 nities particularly vulnerable to the social and economic effects of marine plastic pollution (UNEP 2021a). Plastic pollution entering the ocean is expected to triple by 2040 to 29 million metric tons per year, and the total plastic stock in the ocean will quadruple to 646 million metric tons by 2040 without significant action (Lau et al. 2020). The presence of plastics in the ocean threatens all marine life through entanglement and ingestion, habitat disturbance, and chemical uptake (Gall and Thompson 2015; UNEP 2021a). Microplastics in the ocean can act as vectors for pathogenic organisms and alter the reproduction rates and life expectancy of marine species (UNEP 2021a). There is also growing evidence that exposure to the chemicals in plastics can lead to chronic health conditions, including cancers, diabetes, obesity, and infertility, whereas microplastics and nanoplastics could have additional toxic effects because of their ability to cross biological mem- branes, including the brain and placenta (Bidashimwa et al. 2023). Given their proximity and exposure to plastic pollution, workers in the blue econo- my are likely to be particularly vulnerable to plastic-related health concerns. The World Bank was an early actor in tackling marine plastic pollution large- ly because of the support of the PROBLUE trust fund. Although the World Bank has addressed marine plastic pollution through its investments in solid waste management for at least two decades, the World Bank’s specific focus on plastic pollution can be traced to the establishment of a dedicated fund- ing window (in 2018), within the PROBLUE multidonor trust fund. PROBLUE has provided 68 grants for $45 million in support of 39 pieces of analytic Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    39 work and co-financing for 29 investment operations (representing 35 per- cent of PROBLUE’s total budget). The World Bank also has provided policy support to address plastic waste (12 development policy loans). The World Bank’s global plastics analytics and estimation models are being used by policy makers to tackle plastic pollution. World Bank global analytics include the flagship report Where Is the Value in the Chain? Pathways out of Plastic Pollution (2022k), which brings insights from the development of two models: the Plastics Policy Simulator and the Plastic Substitution Tradeoff Estimator. The Plastics Policy Simulator is a capacity development model for policy makers to estimate how businesses and households will react to implementing new plastics policies and the costs, revenues, and other im- pacts of those policies. The Plastic Substitution Tradeoff Estimator assesses the costs and benefits of alternative materials in monetary, quantitative, and qualitative terms in 10 single-use plastic products, including bottles, cut- lery, food wrapping, and diapers. These models are filling an important gap because very few similar open-access tools exist for national-level explora- tion of plastics policy options and show positive signs of early uptake. We found that the Plastics Policy Simulator and the Plastic Substitution Tradeoff Estimator are being applied, for example, in countries such as the Philippines, which is one of the highest plastic waste polluters in the world, as shown in figure 3.1, and by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Regional Action Plan for Combating Marine Debris, which has been endorsed by 10 countries, including many high-polluting countries.5 The tools are also being applied in Georgia, Türkiye, and Ukraine as part of the Europe and Central Asia Regional program Blueing the Black Sea. Other tools developed by the World Bank, such as waste audits, were applied in Kiribati, Samoa, and Tonga in the Pacific Islands. The World Bank has also significantly contributed to shaping the national plastics road maps of Ghana, Indonesia, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia, and Viet Nam through its partnership with the World Economic Forum’s Global Plastic Action Partnership. The Indonesia and Pakistan action plans, for example, use the World Bank’s What a Waste database and, together with Ghana’s road map, use its plastic hierarchy theory to outline the system- atic changes needed for effective plastic waste management. Making Waves  Chapter 3 40  ighest Ocean Plastic Waste Polluters Figure 3.1. H Source: Lugas Wicaksono 2023, ©Visual Capitalist. Reproduced with permission, from Visual Capitalist; further permission required for reuse. Note: Annual estimation is in metric tons. The World Bank has provided important development policy support to Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    41 address marine plastic issues in SIDS but not in the coastal nations that rank as major contributors to plastic waste production. The World Bank has concentrated its policy support on addressing plastic waste in or affecting the marine space through development policy financing, with 58 percent (7 out of 12) of prior actions targeting SIDS, which are not the principal generators of plastic waste.6 Although this is suboptimal from a global perspective, these interventions are yielding considerable environmental advantages locally. For example, the Grenada Fiscal Resilience and Blue Growth development policy credits had prior actions to ban Styrofoam food containers, single-use plastic bags, and disposable plastic cutlery, which resulted in an almost complete import ban of such products. Similarly, prior actions for the St. Vincent and the Grenadines Second Fiscal Reform and Resilience development policy credit supported the phaseout of the import, distribution, and use of single-use plastic bags and plastic food containers to reduce waste generation and marine pollution. Prior actions included in the Solomon Islands Transition to Sustainable Growth development policy operation series helped introduce an environmental levy on single- use plastics and other plastics with toxic components to reduce plastic pollution. However, there is a notable absence of policy operational support in many coastal nations shown in figure 3.1 that rank as major contributors to plastic waste production. Notable policy actions in the Philippines, the highest-polluting country, include the enactment of the Extended Producer Responsibility Act requiring large enterprises to recover up to 80 percent of plastic packaging waste by 2028. Otherwise, development policy operations have supported a tax on plastic bags in Colombia and a ban on the use of single-use plastic bags beneath a certain thickness in Albania, neither of which is a top polluter. This discrepancy suggests a potential misalignment between the geographical focus of policy support and the areas where it could achieve the most impact on global plastic waste reduction. The World Bank has also not clarified the connection between its commit- ments to achieve a just climate change transition to its circular economy (plastics and pollution) agenda. A key area of debate in the ongoing Global Plastics Treaty negotiations is how the necessary circularity shift in the global plastics economy might affect vulnerable communities, with many countries and groups insisting that a just transition is essential to effectively tackle plastic pollution in a way that is acceptable to all parties. In align- ment with this position, the World Bank has indicated that the solutions to plastic pollution should not “penalize poor countries, or poor communities in every country” and that “we must design solutions with the needs and realities of the poorest communities in mind, to ensure a ‘just transition’” (Hickey 2023). However, this position is not clearly reflected in some of Making Waves  Chapter 3 the World Bank’s key guidance on tackling plastic pollution. For example, neither Where Is the Value in the Chain? Pathways out of Plastic Pollution (World Bank 2022k) nor Tackling Plastics Pollution: Towards Experience- Based Policy Guidance (World Bank 2022i) advocate a just transition or specifically mention the term. Although these reports, and the associated tools,7 acknowledge social dimensions and the need for integrating social considerations into policy reforms, the broader concept or contemporary 42 understanding of a just transition, as highlighted by stakeholders in the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations,8 is not captured, and the tools do not clarify specific measures. Similarly, the recently published Plastic- Free Coastlines: A Contribution from the Maghreb to Address Marine Plastic Pollution (World Bank 2022f) does not mention a just transition. Given the World Bank’s view that tackling plastic pollution is key to its fight to tackle poverty and its commitment to supporting the blue economy, there is room for further alignment with this key consideration in the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations. Marine and Coastal Tourism Tourism, a key sector of the blue economy, offers significant opportunities for employment, income, and foreign exchange in developing countries, but it requires careful balancing of environmental and sociocultural im- pacts within a blue economy transition. Making up about 50 percent of global tourism, marine and coastal tourism generate $4.6 trillion annual- ly, accounting for 5.2 percent of global GDP (Northrop et al. 2022). It is an essential part of the economy for small islands and coastal communities. Although COVID-19 severely affected the sector and those dependent on it, international tourism flows recovered to almost 60 percent of prepandem- ic levels by July 2022 (OECD 2022). Amid this recovery, tourism’s potential benefits are contingent on sustainable management because unmanaged Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    43 tourism exerts pressures on limited marine and coastal resources, leading to environmental, economic, and social harm. Environmental impacts include pollution (including plastics),9 habitat and reef destruction for infrastruc- ture development,10 biodiversity loss, shoreline erosion, water resource depletion, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change exac- erbates these pressures as rising sea levels and increased storm frequency threaten both natural ecosystems and the tourism infrastructure dependent on them. Unsustainable tourism can also erode traditional culture and local economies. It can lead to overdependence on tourism, increase crime and conflicts, and crowd out traditional businesses (Lei, Suntikul, and Chen 2023). Transitioning the marine and coastal tourism sector within a blue economy calls for an approach that (i) is informed by an integrated planning framework such as MSP to designate tourism locations appropriately and balance trade-offs between tourism and other sectors; (ii) prioritizes and supports ecosystem health and resilience; and (iii) ensures comprehensive stakeholder engagement, with particular attention to the needs of marginal- ized groups (Hickey 2022). 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). The World Bank’s core coastal and marine tourism portfolio has contributed to local economic development and jobs, with some evidence of success, but it has paid insufficient attention to upstream environmental issues, includ- ing water use and waste. Since 2016, the World Bank has financed 17 analytic products and 14 lending projects focused on tourism development (all were developed by the Finance, Competitiveness, and Innovation GP), which is the subject of this assessment.11,12 Of the 14 lending operations approved since the launch of the blue economy agenda in the World Bank (2016 on- ward) that have supported coastal and marine tourism, 6 have passed the Mid-Term Review stage and 3 are closed; most (78 percent) are in Africa. In this cohort of mature or closed projects, most contributed to increased private investment in tourism destinations by supporting tourism promotion and marketing plans and by improving infrastructure. They also supported diversification aims by connecting micro, small, and medium enterprises to tourism markets through training and certification, which also enabled some of these micro, small, and medium enterprises to access finance. Notwithstanding these economic achievements, none of these projects worked upstream to reduce the production of waste or pollution, or excess use of water, that would result from the envisioned increase in tourism, and Making Waves  Chapter 3 only 2 projects included and tracked tourism-related waste management activities (in Indonesia and Senegal). As of 2022, the World Bank put forth a blue tourism paper that represents a shift away from its prior tourism theory of change and that is capable of supporting blue economy aims. Blue Tourism in Islands and Small Tourism- Dependent Coastal States: Tools & Recovery Strategies (World Bank 2022a), 44 financed by PROBLUE, represents a strong departure from the World Bank’s prior tourism theory of change, published in 2018, which focused mostly on competitiveness and diversification (World Bank 2018d). That theory of change report did not reference the blue economy, oceans, pollution, waste management, or plastics. The concept of environmental sustainability is also not clearly integrated within the guidance. Most of the coastal and marine tourism portfolio, approved since 2016, focused on market development and investment promotion; micro, small, and medium enterprise integration, which enables infrastructure and services; and to a certain extent, more recently, economic diversification. Conversely, the World Bank’s new tourism paper explains how countries and operations can shift to a more sustainable and resilient (financially, environmentally, socioeconomically, and culturally) tourism approach. The shift was stimulated by the sector crises caused by COVID-19, which prompted many governments and the World Bank to rethink the way they are engaging in the sector. The transition envisioned is one that moves the tourism sector away from high-impact, environmentally and culturally damaging activities toward low-impact, high-value tourism growth that proactively supports local communities and the conservation of natural resources. Importantly, the guidance also emphasizes the need for cross-sector coordination, which is critical for achieving blue economy aims: “tourism needs to be considered not as a discrete area but in connection with sustainable fisheries, agribusiness, transport, and rural development” (World Bank 2022a, 12). There is evidence that these principles have been taken up in one new Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    45 tourism promotion project—the Resilient Tourism and Blue Economy Development in Cabo Verde Project (2022–present)—which promotes and tracks the number of beneficiary small and medium enterprises that take up environmentally friendly practices (for example, water conservation, waste management, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions). Time will tell whether other tourism operations will follow suit now that they are supported by PROBLUE. Maritime Transport Infrastructure Maritime transport is an integral part of a holistic blue economy system, but maritime policies and infrastructure have historically been developed in silos. Maritime policies that concern the securitization of water rights, shipping, and navigational issues, as well as port design and expansion, have often been developed in isolation from other sectors. Decisions about the place- ment and development of fisheries ports and container or cruise terminals have been left to the markets without being integrated into marine and land use planning processes that consider their environmental and social effects. The industry has relied on heavy and intermediate fuel oils that pollute the sea and air and are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions (Helton 2023). Maritime transport contributes to approximately 30 percent of global nitrogen oxide emissions and 2.9 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions (OECD 2024). Solid waste has also been dumped into the ocean, winding up on coastlines and carried with the current to distant shores, rather than being managed responsibly.13 Ports range from deepwater container terminals that often are not socially inclusive to fishing ports and docks where there are ample opportunities to support local jobs and provide access to local markets with appropriate upstream planning and community engagement. Aspects of the blue economy in the marine transport space—such as de- carbonization and greening of ports—have been covered by World Bank analytics, but operational uptake is low. With the support of PROBLUE, the World Bank has developed analytics on the decarbonization of ship- ping and the greening of ports. Since the introduction of the Blue Economy Development Framework in fiscal year 2016, the World Bank has approved 14 investment projects that support maritime transport, seaports, or inland waterways connected to the coast. Among them, 5 projects in the Comoros, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Tonga have interventions designed to enhance the disaster resilience of their seaports, mainly through gray infrastructure.14 Only two maritime trans- port projects, in the Comoros and Kiribati, assess and address trade-offs as part of an MSP approach (financial, environmental, and social) using a blue Making Waves  Chapter 3 economy lens (box 3.2). World Bank analytics are also yielding insights into the financial dimensions of decarbonizing maritime transport, particularly in carbon revenue allocation, and this knowledge has been shared global- ly at the 27th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Two South Asian maritime transport proj- ects (approved in fiscal years 2016 and 2017) support decarbonization of maritime shipping through cleaner fuel adoption (however, both projects 46 were undergoing restructuring at the time of the evaluation, so results could not be reported). However, other maritime transport projects in coastal states that focus on operational safety, physical expansions, and adminis- trative management do not include references to environmental or social considerations beyond safeguards or the wider blue economy (including in Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Indonesia, Somalia, Tanzania, and Togo). There are also opportunities to partner or engage in mutual learning in this space, for example, with the African Union, which has placed sustainable port devel- opment at the center of its blue economy strategy with support from the African Development Bank (AfDB 2022).  aritime Transport Projects That Use a Blue Economy Lens Box 3.2. M Two recently approved projects in Kiribati and the Comoros stand out for their integration of environmental and social considerations into maritime transport. The Kiribati Outer Islands Transport Infrastructure Investment Project (P165838), approved in fiscal year 2020, has technical assistance to enhance the government’s capacity in using marine spatial data. This is expected to enable the monitoring of cargo shipping activities’ impact on lagoon marine resources and reefs while facilitating climate-informed maritime operations. Similarly, the Comoros Interisland Connectivity Project (P173114), approved in fiscal year 2022, incorporates considerations for coastal communities’ social welfare in its project design. The seaports are designed to accommodate fishing boats and other small cargo vessels, allowing local fishing Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    47 communities to develop their business in the port areas and thus promoting coexistence between local fishery and maritime transport industries. Sources: Independent Evaluation Group; World Bank 2020a, 2022c. Blue Economy at the Corporate Level The PROBLUE trust fund has been instrumental in helping the World Bank finance blue economy analyses, lodged within advisory services and op- erations. PROBLUE is a multidonor trust fund established in 2018 and administered by the World Bank’s ENB GP. Donors include Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It has supported over 180 grants in 80 client countries, with a total contribution of over $220 million, that have supported 84 ASAs and 46 lending operations (of which all but 2 are active and in the pipeline). PROBLUE finances four eligible pillars of work: (i) fisheries and aquaculture management; (ii) marine pollution, including litter and plastics; (iii) ocean- ic sectors (“blueing” sectors, such as tourism, maritime transport, offshore renewable energy, desalination, and so on); and (iv) seascape management (building government capacity for integrated marine resource management). As noted in the Articulation of the Blue Economy in Country Diagnostics section in chapter 2, focused blue economy analytics have been critical for articulating the blue economy in country diagnostics. Although PROBLUE had predominantly supported blue economy analytics housed in the ENB GP during its early years (100 percent of grants were provided to ENB GP as of 2019), it has also supported blue economy analyses in other sectors between 2019 and 2023 (one-fifth of the PROBLUE grants were provided to other sec- tors for ASA in 2023). PROBLUE’s support has had a pronounced focus on marine pollution, but recent trends show increased pillar diversification in line with wider blue economy aims. Since its inception, PROBLUE has demonstrated a strong commitment to tackling marine pollution by directing 40 percent of its total grant financing toward pillar 2. The share of annual funding dedicated to pillar 2 started at a peak of 73 percent in 2019 and decreased to 30 percent by 2023, although in absolute terms, the share has increased in line with PROBLUE’s tripling of grant approvals during this period (see figure 3.2). By 2023, PROBLUE’s financing had shown a significant increase in diversifi- cation, especially in financing seascape management (pillar 4) and oceanic sectors (pillar 3), which are most in line with wider blue economy aims. Fisheries and aquaculture remain the least funded pillar, having received only 16 percent of PROBLUE’s financing over its lifetime. Making Waves  Chapter 3 48  ROBLUE Financing by Pillar, by Grant Volume Figure 3.2. P 60,000,00 50,000,00 Grant financing (US$) 40,000,00 30,000,00 20,000,00 10,000,00 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grant approval (fiscal year) Pillar 1 - Fisheries and aquaculture Pillar 3 - Oceanic sectors Pillar 4 - Seascape management Pillar 2 - Marine pollution Source: Independent Evaluation Group. PROBLUE funds have only infrequently been used to help integrate blue economy principles into investment operations in other key sectors. Two-thirds of PROBLUE grants provided to lending operations have been used by ENB to enhance the sustainability of small-scale fishing, capacity Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    49 building for solid waste management, and piloting nature-based tourism—activities in line with blue economy aims. However, PROBLUE grants have only infrequently been used to promote the adoption of a blue economy approach within other GPs, which would entail the provision of PROBLUE finance for engagement of ENB staff in sector operations in key blue economy areas, such as tourism or marine transport. Good examples include co–task team leadership of the Mozambique Sustainable Rural Economy Program and the Resilient Tourism and Blue Economy Development in Cabo Verde Project and ENB cross-support to the Jamaica Disaster Vulnerability Reduction Project. PROBLUE is supporting gender integration through analytics and criteria in their grant proposals, but it is too soon to assess gender outcomes in projects, although enhanced monitoring and reporting are needed at the project and portfolio levels. PROBLUE has demonstrated a strategic com- mitment to gender integration by incorporating gender criteria in its grant proposals and by producing key analytics.15 For example, by June 2023, 93 percent of all PROBLUE grant recipients had articulated how gender results would be achieved in their respective operations. Since projects have not sufficiently captured and reported on gender-disaggregated effects, howev- er, plans are underway to use more specialists on gender and gender-based violence in PROBLUE-financed operations. Making Waves  Chapter 3 50 1 Although the Eastern Caribbean states had indigenously put forth the St. George’s Declaration of Principles for Environmental Sustainability in the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS)—the existing vision of the blue economy in the OECS—support was needed to translate that vision into regional and national policy, produce national asset accounts, and harmonize and update sector legislation. The St. George’s Declaration of Principles for Environmental Sustainability in the OECS (signed in 1999, ratified in 2001, and revised in 2006) is the benchmark environmental management framework in the Eastern Caribbean region. The declaration is structured around 21 principles to guide sustainable de- velopment, mandating their delivery by OECS member states, and sets out clear requirements for monitoring environmental impacts and trends in ecosystem health.  2 This has included accounting exercises to provide initial measures of ocean-linked econom- ic activity, undertaking Public Expenditure Reviews for the blue economy; guidance, action plans, and road maps to introduce blue economy tools such as marine spatial planning; and analyses for key sectors considered important for blue economy development.  3 The Arab Republic of Egypt—Alexandria Coastal Zone Management Project (fiscal year [FY]10; P095925): The population is already benefiting from having a coordination mech- anism in place through the adoption of the integrated coastal zone management plan, which will allow the regular monitoring of water quality and biodiversity along the coast. Beneficiaries were consulted, and they participated in the development of the plan. Pollution reduction will allow fishers to catch less contaminated and better-quality fish (Mugil ceph- alus instead of less valuable fish, such as tilapia), including the restoration of wetland and Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    51 biodiversity conservation. Stakeholders have also benefited from integrated coastal zone management training, which has helped with sustainably managing the future land use of the city, potentially increasing coastal fishing and recreational activities. The Namibian Coast Conservation and Management Project (FY06; P070885): The proclamation of the Sperrgebiet National Park (now called Tsau/Khaeb) in 2008, the Namibian Islands Marine Protected Area in 2009, and the Dorob National Park in 2010, linking the Namib-Naukluft Park and the Skeleton Coast National Park in 2011, contributed to the achievement of the project devel- opment objective. India—Integrated Coastal Zone Management Project (FY10; P097985): Achievements included delineation of 7,500 kilometers of coastal hazard line for India and restoration of over 16,000 hectares of mangroves and 2,000 hectares of shelterbelt. Innovative environmental infrastructure includes sewage treatment plants in Gujarat with private sector participation and island electrification in West Bengal. Livelihood improvements and environ- mental services directly benefited 1.84 million people and indirectly 13.8 million people (over 50 percent women). Morocco—Integrated Coastal Zone Management Project (FY13; P121271): The project included the restoration of 500 hectares of degraded land, which reduced ero- sion and created jobs and income benefits. Albania—Integrated Coastal Zone Management and Clean-up Project (FY05–15; P086807): The project dropped its objective to enhance regulatory policy and governance of the coastal zone, land use and regional planning, and institutional capacity. However, it assisted the government of Albania with improving critical infrastructure and municipal services along its southern coast. This included the construction of a sanitary landfill that can accommodate the disposal of 25,000 tons of waste annual- ly, construction of a 180-meter new berth front with 9-meter water depth, remediation of contaminated sites from a former chemical plant, water supply and sewerage infrastructure, and road improvements. West Africa Coastal Areas Resilience Investment Project (FY18, P162337): Achievements included 4,028 households in targeted coastal areas with less expo- sure to erosion, 14,368 households in targeted coastal areas with less exposure to flooding, 1,250 households in targeted coastal areas with less exposure to pollution, 168.75 hectares of targeted coastal area with flooding control measures, 6.79 kilometers of shoreline with target- ed coastal erosion control measures, two sites or zones with pollution control measures, and 4,491 coastal households with access to improved livelihood activities.  4 From Independent Evaluation Group discussions held with the African Union Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development in August 2023.  5 Further alignment and implementation support of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Regional Action Plan provided as part of country-level investment project financ- ing work—for example, the PROBLUE-supported investment project financing to Cambodia (P170976).  6 The development policy operations have been led by the Macroeconomics, Trade, and Investment Global Practice (n = 9); Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy (n = 2); Social Protection and Jobs (n = 1); and Urban, Disaster Risk Management, Resilience, Making Waves  Chapter 3 and Land (n = 1).  7 Namely, the Plastics Policy Simulator and the Plastic Substitution Tradeoff Estimator tools.  8 For example, the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, in a briefing note for treaty negotiators published in 2023 titled Towards a Just Transition Away from Plastic Pollution, states that “provisions for a just transition away from plastic pollution have been viewed as necessary in the ongoing negotiations towards an international legally binding 52 instrument to end plastic pollution (henceforth, plastics treaty). In this context, just tran- sition means ensuring that measures taken to end plastic pollution are fair, equitable[,] and inclusive for all stakeholders across the plastics life cycle by safeguarding livelihoods and communities impacted by plastic pollution and corresponding control measures. A just tran- sition entails recognizing the inequitably distributed impacts of plastic pollution across the plastics life cycle, ensuring decent and green work opportunities and conditions for affected communities and workers across the plastics value chain, reducing inequalities, particularly among women and youth, and leaving no-one behind in the transition towards ending plastic pollution” (O’Hare et al. 2023).  9 Tourism can exacerbate marine litter, solid waste, and wastewater problems, particularly when infrastructure to accommodate increased visitors is insufficient. For example, the vol- ume of marine litter in the Mediterranean region increases up to 40 percent during the peak tourist season, causing environmental damage and deterring tourists from visiting (WWF 2019). A recent PROBLUE study found that marine plastic pollution resulted in a measurable economic cost to tourism of approximately $18 million in Tanzania and Zanzibar (McIlgorm and Xie 2023). Discharge from boats and cruise ships and chemical sunscreen also negatively affect water quality and marine ecosystems.  10 Tourism infrastructure development, including hotels and roads, often leads to environmen- tal degradation, destroying vital coastal ecosystems, such as mangroves and seagrass, through land and beach clearing. In 2010, the state of Quintana Roo in Mexico, where Cancún is, was losing approximately 150,000 hectares of mangroves per year as a result of land clearing for hotels and resorts (Vidal 2010).  Since 2016, the Finance, Competitiveness, and Innovation Global Practice has produced Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    53 11 17 advisory services and analytics, including six country analyses (Cabo Verde, Pakistan, Sint Maarten, Tanzania and Zanzibar, Timor-Leste, and Uruguay), two in the Caribbean (OECS), two in the Pacific region, one focused on the Indian Ocean subregion, and five global. It has also approved 14 lending projects (and four additional financing) that have a core focus on coastal and marine tourism across 12 countries—in Benin, The Gambia, Ghana, Indonesia, Madagascar, the Republic of Congo, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and four small island developing states (Cabo Verde, the Comoros, OECS, and Suriname).  12 Other Global Practices have also supported projects with marine tourism activities (often lodged within components), including Urban, Disaster Risk Management, Resilience, and Land and Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy, which are not the subject of this assessment.  13  Maritime transport is the source of waste and pollution entering the seas and oceans in a direct way. The ports in the region lack waste reception facilities, and many ships dump their wastes at sea, and the waste is then transported to distant locations by winds and currents (UNEP 2021a). 14 “Gray infrastructure is built structures and mechanical equipment, such as reservoirs, em- bankments, pipes, pumps, water treatment plants, and canals. These engineered solutions are embedded within watersheds or coastal ecosystems whose hydrological and environmental at- tributes profoundly affect the performance of the gray infrastructure” (Browder et al. 2019, 14).  15 These include Gender Integration in the Blue Economy Portfolio: Review of Experiences and Future Opportunities (World Bank 2022d) and “Gender, Marginalized People and Marine Spatial Planning: Improve Livelihoods, Empower Marginalized Groups, Bridge the Inequality Gap” (World Bank 2021a).  Making Waves  Chapter 3 54 4 | Conclusions and Recommendations Ocean and coastal resources are integral to sustaining life on Earth, but they are in a state of emergency because of governance and man- agement failures compounded by low institutional capacity. Oceans and coastal resources are vital for inclusive growth, jobs, and food and nutrition security. However, the sustainability of these resources is undermined by fragmented policies that are made ineffective 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. This challenge is exacerbated by the delayed response to and mount- ing threats of climate change. International actors have progressively proposed using a blue economy ap- proach to address ocean and coastal governance failures. Although there is no single definition of the blue economy, international actors have coalesced around the need to ensure the health of ocean and coastal resources to support the environmentally sustainable and socially equitable development of coastal and marine areas. Blue economy implies a shift from sector-led to integrated approaches that require sector coordination to identify synergies Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    55 and manage trade-offs among resource user groups and development aims. World Bank Articulation of the Blue Economy The World Bank adopted a blue economy approach in 2016 and subsequently helped lift a progressive blue economy concept out of country workshops and onto the world stage. The World Bank heightened the credibility of the blue economy concept through analytics, often financed by bilateral part- ners. These analytics, mostly regional, presented the potential of the blue economy to achieve balanced economic, environmental, and social develop- ment 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 that are expressed in its own analytics and that are increasingly being communicated by key partners. These missing tenets include references to the restorative potential of the blue economy, inclusion, equity, and the need for integrated approaches. The World Bank’s corporate definition also appears to be decoupled from press- ing food and nutrition security, climate change, biodiversity, and circular economy goals. 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 its more holistic aim. Clearly articulating the more holistic definition of the blue economy is also important so that World Bank man- agement and staff consistently communicate the more holistic concept in client-facing engagements. Although the blue economy is being referenced in most SIDS SCDs and is slowly emerging in those for coastal states, low comprehensiveness of the concept is limiting its ability to be used as a policy framing tool. Although most SIDS and some coastal nation SCDs refer to the blue economy, the persistent tendency to address sector issues in silos hinders opportunities to identify synergies and manage trade-offs across the World Bank portfo- lio. This low comprehensiveness of the concept is also reflected in SCDs’ tendencies to cite the potential of emerging sectors (for example, offshore energy) without considering trade-offs. The blue economy can play a significant role in climate change mitigation and adaptation, but the World Bank’s CCDRs are being underused as a tool to help clients achieve this aim. CCDRs also only partially identify risks posed by climate change to marine and coastal areas and often do not diagnose the potential risks posed by emerging sectors to the marine environment. Making Waves  Chapter 4 The World Bank’s commitment to the blue economy is also not clearly articulated in its evolution. The importance of the blue economy is not reflected in the September 2023 Development Committee paper “Ending Poverty on a Livable Planet: Report to Governors on World Bank Evolution,” which outlines the World Bank’s mission to support a livable planet (World Bank 2023a). Its newly launched Global Challenge Program on 56 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 Operationalization of the Blue Economy The World Bank demonstrated how to effectively engage on blue economy development using a governance approach in the Eastern Caribbean. This effective approach focused on harmonizing and developing blue economy policies and practices as a precursor to sector lending. Elsewhere, the use of sector entry points in marine and coastal areas has achieved sector results, but these entry points have not been leveraged to support policy and institutional reforms critical for blue economy devel- opment. Most governments are just beginning to establish coherent policy, strategy, and institutional mechanisms for effective blue economy devel- opment. With few exceptions, such as in Morocco and OECS, World Bank operations in these countries are achieving sector results but are not yet being leveraged to support sector transitions involving needed coordination to achieve blue economy aims. There have also been critical gaps between the launch of influential blue economy analytics and operational support that have hindered blue econo- my development. Maintaining country engagement is important because the Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    57 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 has updated much of its relevant sector guidance to incor- porate blue economy principles, but thus far, uptake is uneven: » The designs of small-scale fisheries projects are increasingly aligned with progressive global fisheries guidance that is capable of achieving blue econ- omy aims. Consistent application of this guidance can promote more holistic designs for some projects that retain a growth aim and the enhanced integra- tion of climate change considerations. » The World Bank’s global plastics analytics and estimation models are being used by policy makers to tackle plastic pollution. The World Bank has used development policy lending to address marine plastics issues in SIDS, but this policy support has yet to be extended to coastal nations that rank as major contributors to plastic waste production. » The World Bank’s updated analytics on blue tourism support a more holistic approach, but with few exceptions, marine and coastal tourism operations are paying insufficient attention to upstream environmental issues, such as water use and waste. » Aspects of the blue economy in the marine transport space—such as de- carbonization and greening of ports—have been covered in analytics, but operational uptake is low. 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 main trust fund vehicle for supporting the blue economy in the World Bank, PROBLUE has effectively supported the development of blue economy analytics and has in- creasingly diversified its grants to achieve more holistic blue economy aims. PROBLUE and its governance body are implicated in the need to consistently communicate the more holistic meaning of the blue economy. A more strate- gic approach involves, among other things, identifying and addressing policy and institutional gaps that underpin blue economy development and deep- ening PROBLUE’s support for relevant sector investments. These findings lead to the following three recommendations: » At a corporate level, the World Bank should articulate its commitment to helping clients achieve the more holistic meaning of the blue economy, Making Waves  Chapter 4 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 approach- es, while also clarifying 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 58 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 that there is coherence across sector operations implemented in coastal and marine areas to help clients maximize the restorative and inclusive develop- ment 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 identi- fication and the addressing of policy and institutional gaps that currently undermine blue economy development through effective partnering with re- gional 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 Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    59 technologies in the blue economy space. Bibliography AfDB (African Development Bank). 2022. “Stakeholders Discuss the Role of African Ports in the Development of the Blue Economy.” AfDB, April 6, 2022. https:// www.afdb.org/en/news-and-events/stakeholders-discuss-role-african-ports- development-blue-economy-50854. Allison, Edward H., and Frank Ellis. 2001. “The Livelihoods Approach and Management of Small-Scale Fisheries.” Marine Policy 25 (5): 377–88. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0308-597X(01)00023-9. Arthur, Robert I., Daniel J. Skerritt, Anna Schuhbauer, Naazia Ebrahim, Richard M. Friend, and U. Rashid Sumaila. 2022. “Small-Scale Fisheries and Local Food Systems: Transformations, Threats and Opportunities.” Fish and Fisheries 23 (1): 109–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12602. Backhaus, Thomas, and Martin Wagner. 2020. “Microplastics in the Environment: Much Ado about Nothing? A Debate.” Global Challenges 4 (6): 1900022. https:// doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201900022. Belhabib, Dyhia, U. Rashid Sumaila, and Daniel Pauly. 2015. “Feeding the Poor: Contribution of West African Fisheries to Employment and Food Security.” Ocean & Coastal Management 111 (July): 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ocecoaman.2015.04.010. Benzaken, Dominique, Jean Paul Adam, John Virdin, and Michelle Voyer. 2024. “From Concept to Practice: Financing Sustainable Blue Economy in Small Island Developing States—Lessons Learnt from the Seychelles Experience.” Marine Policy 163 (May): 106072. Making Waves  Bibliography Bidashimwa, Dieudonne, Theresa Hoke, Thu Ba Huynh, Nujpanit Narkpitaks, Kharisma Priyonugroho, Trinh Thai Ha, Allison Burns, and Amy Weissman. 2023. “Plastic Pollution: How Can the Global Health Community Fight the Growing Problem?” BMJ Global Health 8 (3): e012140. https://gh.bmj.com/ content/8/Suppl_3/e012140. Bladon, Annabelle, Gunilla Tegelskär Greig, and Yuko Okamura. 2022. “Connecting Social Protection and Fisheries Management for Sustainability: A Conceptual 60 Framework.” Policy and Technical Note 25, World Bank, Washington, DC. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099905005312234157/ P17435304301b30c80b30b09ae4dc6a21ae. Blythe, Jessica L. 2015. “Resilience and Social Thresholds in Small-Scale Fishing Communities.” Sustainability Science 10: 157–65. https://link.springer.com/ article/10.1007/s11625-014-0253-9. Browder, Greg, Suzanne Ozment, Irene Rehberger Bescos, Todd Gartner, and Glenn-Marie Lange. 2019. Integrating Green and Gray: Creating Next Generation Infrastructure. Washington, DC: World Bank and World Resources Institute. Brugère, Cécile, Katrien Holvoet, and Edward H. Allison. 2008. “Livelihood Diversification in Coastal and Inland Fishing Communities: Misconceptions, Evidence and Implications for Fisheries Management.” Working Paper, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. https://www.fao.org/fishery/docs/DOCUMENT/ sflp/wp/diversification_june2008.pdf. Bunting, Pete, Ake Rosenqvist, Lammert Hilarides, Richard M. Lucas, Nathan Thomas, Takeo Tadono, Thomas A. Worthington, Mark Spalding, Nicholas J. Murray, and Lisa-Maria Rebelo. 2022. “Global Mangrove Extent Change 1996–2020: Global Mangrove Watch Version 3.0.” Remote Sensing 14 (15): 3657. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14153657. Burke, Lauretta, Katie Reytar, Mark Spalding, and Allison Perry. 2011. Reefs at Risk: Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    61 Revisited. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/ research/reefs-risk-revisited. Chan, Nicholas. 2018. “‘Large Ocean States’: Sovereignty, Small Islands, and Marine Protected Areas in Global Oceans Governance.” Global Governance 24 (4): 537–55. Chaudhuri, Punarbasu, and Subarna Bhattacharyya. 2021. “Impact of COVID-19 Lockdown on the Socioenvironmental Scenario of Indian Sundarban.” In Environmental Resilience and Transformation in Times of COVID-19: Climate Change Effects on Environmental Functionality, edited by A. L. Ramanathan, Chidambaram Sabarathinam, M. P. Jonathan, M. V. Prasanna, Pankaj Kumar, and Francisco Muñoz Arriola, 25–36. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Chuenpagdee, Ratana, and Svein Jentoft. 2018. “Transforming the Governance of Small-Scale Fisheries.” Maritime Studies 17 (April): 101–15. https://doi. org/10.1007/s40152-018-0087-7. Chuenpagdee, Ratana, and Vesna Kerezi. 2022. “Small-Scale Fisheries Sustainability: Progress and Challenges.” Ocean Yearbook Online 36 (1): 268–86. http:// toobigtoignore.net/small-scale-fisheries-sustainability-progress-and- challenges. Cisneros-Montemayor, Andrés M., Marcia Moreno-Báez, Gabriel Reygondeau, William W. L. Cheung, Katherine M. Crosman, Pedro C. González-Espinosa, Vicky W. Y. Lam, Muhammed A. Oyinlola, Gerald G. Singh, Wilf Swartz, Chong- wei Zheng, and Yoshitaka Ota. 2021. “Enabling Conditions for an Equitable and Sustainable Blue Economy.” Nature 591 (March): 396–401. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41586-021-03327-3. Cousteau, Ashlan, Philippe Cousteau, and Joseph Kraynak. 2021. Oceans for Dummies. Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing. Crawford, Brian R. 2002. “Seaweed Farming: An Alternative Livelihood for Small-Scale Fishers?” Working Paper, Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ Seaweed-Farming-%3A-An-Alternative-Livelihood-for-Crawford/ e297f3ae8e8f917436acf95c4244271659ccda64. Donato, Daniel C., J. Boone Kauffman, Daniel Murdiyarso, Sofyan Kurnianto, Melanie Stidham, and Markku Kanninen. 2011. “Mangroves among the Most Carbon- Rich Forests in the Tropics.” Nature Geoscience 4 (May): 293–7. https://www. nature.com/articles/ngeo1123. EMF (Ellen MacArthur Foundation). 2022. Perspective on “Breaking the Plastic Wave” Making Waves  Bibliography Study: The Circular Economy Solution to Plastic Pollution. Cowes: EMF. https:// ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/perspective-on-breaking-the-plastic-wave- study. Epstein, Graham, Steven M. Alexander, Melissa Marschke, Donovan Campbell, and Derek Armitage. 2022. “The Ambiguous Impacts of Alternative Livelihoods on Fisher Wellbeing in a Closed Access Fish Sanctuary in Port 62 Antonio, Jamaica.” Coastal Studies & Society 1 (1): 78–96. https://doi. org/10.1177/26349817211067052. European Commission. 1991. “Conference on European Coastal Conservation.” 1543rd Council Meeting, Press Release 9914/91, Council of the European Communities General Secretariat, Brussels, December 12, 1991. https://aei.pitt. edu/3242/1/3242.pdf. European Commission. 2012. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Blue Growth—Opportunities for Marine and Maritime Sustainable Growth. Brussels: European Commission. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0494:FIN:EN:PDF. European Commission. 2021a. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a New Approach for a Sustainable Blue Economy in the EU: Transforming the EU’s Blue Economy for a Sustainable Future. Brussels: European Commission. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/ PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0240&rid=1. European Commission. 2021b. “Sustainable Blue Economy—Questions and Answers.” European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/ presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_2346. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    63 European Commission. 2023. “AspBAN—Transforming the EU Atlantic Ports into Blue Economy Hubs.” European Commission, March 1, 2023. https:// oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/news/aspban-transforming-eu-atlantic- ports-blue-economy-hubs-2023-03-01_en. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. 2002. “Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2002 Concerning the Implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe.” Official Journal of the European Union L 148: 24–27. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/ reco/2002/413/oj. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2020a. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: Main Report. Rome: FAO. https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ ca9825en. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2020b. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020: Sustainability in Action. Rome: FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ ca9229en. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2022. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022: Towards Blue Transformation. Rome: FAO. https://www.fao. org/3/cc0461en/online/cc0461en.html. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), Duke University, and WorldFish. 2023. Illuminating Hidden Harvests: The Contributions of Small-Scale Fisheries to Sustainable Development. Rome: FAO. https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/ illuminating-hidden-harvests-report-contributions-small-scale-fisheries- sustainable. Gall, Sarah Caroline, and Richard C. Thompson. 2015. “The Impact of Debris on Marine Life.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 92 (1–2): 170–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpolbul.2014.12.041. Garcés-Ordóñez, Ostin, Luisa F. Espinosa Díaz, Renan Pereira Cardoso, and Marcelo Costa Muniz. 2020. “The Impact of Tourism on Marine Litter Pollution on Santa Marta Beaches, Colombian Caribbean.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 160 (November): 111558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111558. Grip, Kjell, and Sven Blomqvist. 2020. “Marine Nature Conservation and Conflicts with Fisheries.” Ambio 49: 1328–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01279-7. Helton, Doug. 2023. “Fueling the Blue Economy.” Office of Response and Restoration (blog), April 24, 2023. https://blog.response.restoration.noaa.gov/fueling-blue- economy. Hickey, Valerie. 2022. “Transformation: The Role of Coastal and Marine Tourism Making Waves  Bibliography in a Sustainable Ocean Economy.” High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, Washington, DC. https://oceanpanel.org/perspective/ valerie-hickey-transformation-the-role-of-sustainable-ocean-tourism-in-a- sustainable-ocean-economy. Hickey, Valerie. 2023. “We Can’t Have a World without Poverty in a World with Plastic Pollution.” Voices (blog), June 2, 2023. https://blogs.worldbank.org/ voices/we-cant-have-world-without-poverty-world-plastic-pollution. 64 Hilborn, Ray, Ricardo Oscar Amoroso, Christopher M. Anderson, Julia K. Baum, Trevor A. Branch, Christopher Costello, Carryn L. de Moor, Abdelmalek Faraj, Daniel Hively, Olaf P. Jensen, Hiroyuki Kurota, L. Richard Little, Pamela Mace, Tim McClanahan, Michael C. Melnychuk, Cóilín Minto, Giacomo Chato Osio, Ana M. Parma, Maite Pons, Susana Segurado, Cody S. Szuwalski, Jono R. Wilson, and Yimin Ye. 2020. “Effective Fisheries Management Instrumental in Improving Fish Stock Status.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 117 (4): 2218–24. IEA (International Energy Agency). 2022. Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021. Paris: IEA. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-co2- emissions-in-2021-2. IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2022. Guidelines: Blue Finance—Guidance for Financing the Blue Economy, Building on the Green Bond Principles and the Green Loan Principles. Washington, DC: IFC. https://www.ifc.org/en/insights- reports/2022/guidelines-for-blue-finance. IOTC (Indian Ocean Tuna Commission). 2022. Appendix 4—Executive Summary: Yellowfin Tuna (2022). Victoria Mahé, Seychelles: IOTC. https://iotc.org/sites/ default/files/content/Stock_status/2022/Yellowfin2022E.pdf. IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). 2019. The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Summary for Policymakers. Bonn, Germany: IPBES. https://doi. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    65 org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2019. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Geneva: IPCC. https://www.ipcc. ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/12/SROCC_FullReport_FINAL.pdf. ITF (International Transport Forum) and OECD (Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development). 2015. “Global Trade: International Freight Transport to Quadruple by 2050.” Press Release, January 27, 2015. https://www. itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/2015-01-27-outlook2015.pdf. Kılıç, Arınç Onat. 2024. “Seychelles Blue Bond: Indebting Ecological Restructuring of Fisheries.” Marine Policy 163 (May): 106144. Knudsen, Magne. 2016. “Poverty and Beyond: Small-Scale Fishing in Overexploited Marine Environments.” Human Ecology 44 (3): 341–52. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/24762785. Kulp, Scott A., and Benjamin H. Strauss. 2019. “New Elevation Data Triple Estimates of Global Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding.” Nature Communications 10: 4844. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12808-z. Lau, Winnie W. Y., Yonathan Shiran, Richard M. Bailey, Ed Cook, Martin R. Stuchtey, Julia Koskella, Costas A. Velis, Linda Godfrey, Julien Boucher, Margaret B. Murphy, Richard C. Thompson, Emilia Jankowska, Arturo Castillo Castillo, Toby D. Pilditch, Ben Dixon, Laura Koerselman, Edward Kosior, Enzo Favoino, Jutta Gutberlet, Sarah Baulch, Meera E. Atreya, David Fischer, Kevin K. He, Milan M. Petit, U. Rashid Sumaila, Emily Neil, Mark V. Bernhofen, Keith Lawrence, and James E. Palardy. 2020. “Evaluating Scenarios toward Zero Plastic Pollution.” Science 369 (6510): 1455–61. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science. aba9475. Lecchini, David, Rohan M. Brooker, Viliame Waqalevu, Emma Gairin, Lana Minier, Cecile Berthe, Rainui Besineau, Guilhem Blay, Tehani Maueau, Vincent Sturny, Tamatoa Bambridge, Gaston Tong Sang, and Frédéric Bertucci. 2021. “Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic Restrictions on Coral Reef Fishes at Eco-Tourism Sites in Bora-Bora, French Polynesia.” Marine Environmental Research 170 (August): 105451. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141113621002075. Lee, Ki-Hoon, Junsung Noh, and Jong Seong Khim. 2020. “The Blue Economy and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals: Challenges and Opportunities.” Environment International 137 (April): 105528. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105528. Making Waves  Bibliography Lei, Weng Si, Wantanee Suntikul, and Zhaoyu Chen. 2023. “Tourism Development Induced Social Change.” Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights 4 (1): 100088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annale.2023.100088. Lindsey, Rebecca, and Luann Dahlman. 2023. “Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content.” NOAA Climate.gov, September 6, 2023. https://www.climate.gov/ news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content. 66 Lindsey, Rebecca, and Michon Scott. 2010. “What Are Phytoplankton?” NASA Earth Observatory, July 13, 2010. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/ Phytoplankton. Link, Jason S., and Reg A. Watson. 2019. “Global Ecosystem Overfishing: Clear Delineation within Real Limits to Production.” Science Advances 5 (6): eaav0474. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aav0474. Lugas Wicaksono, Louis. 2023. “Which Countries Pollute the Most Ocean Plastic Waste?” Visual Capitalist, February 17, 2023. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ cp/visualized-ocean-plastic-waste-pollution-by-country. Mallik, Abhijit, Puja Chakraborty, Shashi Bhushan, and Binaya Bhusan Nayak. 2022. “Impact of COVID-19 Lockdown on Aquatic Environment and Fishing Community: Boon or Bane?” Marine Policy 141 (July): 105088. March, Antaya, Tegan Evans, Stuart Laing, and Jeremy Raguain. 2024. “Evaluating the World’s First Sovereign Blue Bond: Lessons for Operationalising Blue Finance.” Commodities 3 (2): 151–67. McIlgorm, Alistair, and Jian Xie. 2023. The Costs of Environmental Degradation from Plastic Pollution in Selected Coastal Areas in the United Republic of Tanzania. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/099200503132318456/P1764010dcce8005095a3082a8d7ec4b5d. Menéndez, Pelayo, Iñigo J. Losada, Saul Torres-Ortega, Siddharth Narayan, and Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    67 Michael W. Beck. 2020. “The Global Flood Protection Benefits of Mangroves.” Scientific Reports 10: 4404. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61136-6. Merzdorf, Jessica. 2020. “NASA Study Maps the Roots of Global Mangrove Loss.” NASA Earth, August 18, 2020. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/ nasa-study-maps-the-roots-of-global-mangrove-loss. Muallil, Richard N., Rollan C. Geronimo, Deborah Cleland, Reniel B. Cabral, Maria Victoria Doctor, Annabelle Cruz-Trinidad, and Porfirio M. Aliño. 2011. “Willingness to Exit the Artisanal Fishery as a Response to Scenarios of Declining Catch or Increasing Monetary Incentives.” Fisheries Research 111 (1–2): 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2011.06.013. Neiland, Arthur E., Stephen Cunningham, Michael Arbuckle, Andrew Baio, Timothy Bostock, Dougoutigui Coulibaly, Nancy K. Gitonga, Ronan Long, and Sheku Sei. 2016. “Assessing the Potential Contribution of Fisheries to Economic Development—The Case of Post-Ebola Sierra Leone.” Natural Resources 7 (6): 356–76. https://www.scirp.org/journal/ paperinformation?paperid=67474#:~:text=It%20was%20confirmed%20that%20 the,level%20of%2010%20per%20cent. Northrop, Eliza, Peter Schuhmann, Lauretta Burke, Alan Fyall, Sergio Alvarez, Anna Spenceley, Susanne Becken, Kumi Kato, Joyashree Roy, Shreya Some, Joeli Veitayaki, Anil Markandya, Ibon Galarraga, Patxi Greño, Itziar Ruiz-Gauna, Matt Curnock, Megan Epler Wood, Melody Yue Yin, Sibylle Riedmiller, Eleanor Carter, Rizky Haryanto, Elizabeth Holloway, Robertico Croes, Jorge Ridderstaat, and Maksim Godovykh. 2022. Opportunities for Transforming Coastal and Marine Tourism: Towards Sustainability, Regeneration and Resilience. Washington, DC: High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy. https://oceanpanel.org/ publication/opportunities-for-transforming-coastal-and-marine-tourism- towards-sustainability-regeneration-and-resilience. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2020. Sustainable Ocean for All: Harnessing the Benefits of Sustainable Ocean Economies for Developing Countries. Paris: OECD. https://www.oecd.org/environment/ sustainable-ocean-for-all-bede6513-en.htm#:~:text=Adopting%20more%20 sustainable%20ways%20of,the%20consequences%20of%20ocean%20 degradation. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2022. OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2022. Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/ a8dd3019-en. Making Waves  Bibliography OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2024. Shipbuilding. Paris: OECD. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/ shipbuilding.html O’Hare, P., E. Nøklebye, P. Stoett, and K. Kortsen. 2023. Policy Brief: Towards a Just Transition Away from Plastic Pollution. Zenodo, Geneva. https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.10021005. 68 Ormaza-González, Franklin I., Divar Castro-Rodas, and Peter J. Statham. 2021. “COVID-19 Impacts on Beaches and Coastal Water Pollution at Selected Sites in Ecuador, and Management Proposals Post-Pandemic.” Frontiers in Marine Science 8: 669374. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.669374. Oyanedel, Rodrigo, Stefan Gelcich, and E. J. Milner-Gulland. 2020. “A Synthesis of (Non-)-Compliance Theories with Applications to Small-Scale Fisheries Research and Practice.” Fish and Fisheries 21 (6): 1120–34. https://doi. org/10.1111/faf.12490. Parker, Robert W. R., Julia L. Blanchard, Caleb Gardner, Bridget S. Green, Klaas Hartmann, Peter H. Tyedmers, and Reg A. Watson. 2018. “Fuel Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of World Fisheries.” Nature Climate Change 8 (April): 333–37. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0117-x. Patil, Pawan G., John Virdin, Charles S. Colgan, M. G. Hussain, Pierre Failler, and Tibor Vegh. 2018. Toward a Blue Economy: A Pathway for Sustainable Growth in Bangladesh. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank. org/entities/publication/2c64c450-9d06-5964-9b0a-4827765d8eab. Patil, Pawan G., John Virdin, Sylvia Michele Diez, Julian Roberts, and Asha Singh. 2016. Toward a Blue Economy: A Promise for Sustainable Growth in the Caribbean. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/ publication/99be7018-3114-5469-b9fe-ba24f328016a. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    69 Pollnac, Richard B., Robert S. Pomeroy, and Ingvild H. T. Harkes. 2001. “Fishery Policy and Job Satisfaction in Three Southeast Asian Fisheries.” Ocean & Coastal Management 44 (7–8): 531–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(01)00064-3. Post, Jan C., and Carl G. Lundin, eds. 1996. Guidelines for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/ curated/pt/754341468767367444/pdf/multi-page.pdf. Puschmann, Sarah. 2021. “How Did the First Coronavirus Lockdown Affect Air and Ocean Pollution?” European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites, October 21, 2021. https://www.eumetsat.int/features/how-did-first- coronavirus-lockdown-affect-air-and-ocean-pollution. Reddy, S. M., A. Wentz, O. Aburto-Oropeza, M. Maxey, S. Nagavarapu, and H. M. Leslie. 2013. “Evidence of Market-Driven Size-Selective Fishing and the Mediating Effects of Biological and Institutional Factors.” Ecological Applications 23 (4): 726–41. https://doi.org/10.1890/12-1196.1. Silva, Ana L. Patrício, Aleksandra Tubić, Maja Vujić, Amadeu M. V. M. Soares, Armando C. Duarte, Damilà Barcelò, and Teresa Rocha-Santos. 2022. “Implications of COVID-19 Pandemic on Environmental Compartments: Is Plastic Pollution a Major Issue?” Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances 5 (February): 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazadv.2021.100041. Slater, Matthew J., Faith A. Napigkit, and Selina M. Stead. 2013. “Resource Perception, Livelihood Choices and Fishery Exit in a Coastal Resource Management Area.” Ocean & Coastal Management 71 (January): 326–33. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.11.003. UN (United Nations). n.d. “Sustainable Development Goal 14.” UN. https://www. un.org/en/conf/ocean/background.shtml. UN Women. 2021. “The Impact of COVID-19 on Women in the Blue Economy.” The Issue in Brief, UN Women, New York. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). 2021a. “Ocean Economy Offers a $2.5 Trillion Export Opportunity: UNCTAD Report.” UNCTAD, October 26, 2021. https://unctad.org/news/ocean-economy-offers-25-trillion- export-opportunity-unctad-report. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). 2021b. Review of Maritime Transport 2021. New York: United Nations. https://unctad.org/ webflyer/review-maritime-transport-2021. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2022. “Ocean Promise.” UNDP, New York. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2022-06/UNDP_ Making Waves  Bibliography Ocean_Promise_V2.pdf. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2023. “An Ocean of Opportunities: How the Blue Economy Can Transform Sustainable Development in Small Island Developing States.” Action Brief, UNDP, New York. https://www.undp. org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2023-02/UNDP-RBAP-Blue-Economy-Action- Brief-2023.pdf. 70 UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2018. “Sustainable Blue Economy Finance Principles.” UNEP. https://www.unepfi.org/blue-finance/ the-principles/#:~:text=The%20Sustainable%20Blue%20Economy%20 Finance,finance%20a%20sustainable%20blue%20economy. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2021a. From Pollution to Solution: A Global Assessment of Marine Litter and Plastic Pollution. Nairobi: UNEP. https:// www.unep.org/resources/pollution-solution-global-assessment-marine-litter- and-plastic-pollution. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2021b. Governing Coastal Resources: Implications for a Sustainable Blue Economy. Nairobi: UNEP. https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/governing-coastal-resources- implications-sustainable-blue-economy. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2022. Diving Deep: Finance, Ocean Pollution and Coastal Resilience. Nairobi: UNEP. https://www.unepfi.org/themes/ ecosystems/new-guidance-on-finance-ocean-pollution-plastics-and-coastal- resilience. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). Forthcoming. Sustainable Blue Economy Decision Support and Enabling Framework. Nairobi: UNEP. UN-OHRLLS (United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    71 Developing States). 2021. Small Island Developing States in Numbers: Oceans Edition 2020. New York: UN-OHRLLS. https://www.un.org/ohrlls/sites/www. un.org.ohrlls/files/sids_in_numbers_oceans_2020.pdf. Veiga, Joana Mira, David Fleet, Susan Kinsey, Per Nilsson, Thomais Vlachogianni, Stefanie Werner, François Galgani, Richard C. Thompson, Jeroen Dagevos, Jesús Gago, Paula Sobral, and Richard Cronin. 2016. “Identifying Sources of Marine Litter: MSFD GES TG Marine Litter Thematic Report.” Technical Report, Joint Research Centre, European Union, Luxembourg. https://data.europa.eu/ doi/10.2788/018068. Vermeulen-Miltz, Estee, Jai Kumar Clifford-Holmes, Bernadette Snow, and Amanda Talita Lombard. 2022. “Exploring the Impacts of COVID-19 on Coastal Tourism to Inform Recovery Strategies in Nelson Mandela Bay, South Africa.” Systems 10 (4): 120. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems10040120. Vidal, John. 2010. “Cancún: From Mangrove Paradise to Polluted Megasprawl.” The Guardian, December 9, 2010. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/ dec/09/cancun-mangrove-paradise-megasprawl. Voyer, Michelle, Genevieve Quirk, Alistair McIlgorm, and Kamal Azmi. 2018. “Shades of Blue: What Do Competing Interpretations of the Blue Economy Mean for Oceans Governance?” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 20 (5): 595– 616. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2018.1473153. Walsh, Sheila, Theodore Groves, and Sriniketh Nagavarapu. 2010. Promoting Alternative Livelihoods for Conservation Backfires When Non-Monetary Benefits of Traditional Livelihoods Are Important. La Jolla: University of California–San Diego. https://econweb.ucsd.edu/cee/papers/Walsh_Groves_July2010.pdf. WMO (World Meteorological Organization). 2022. State of the Global Climate 2021. Geneva: WMO. https://mcusercontent.com/e35fa2254c2a4394f75d43308/ files/3d2f5b01-11a6-dee2-a42a-13ad5002dc33/1290_Statement_2021_en_1_.pdf. World Bank. 2012. Toward a Green, Clean, and Resilient World for All: A World Bank Group Environment Strategy 2012–2022. Washington, DC: World Bank. https:// openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/23746. World Bank. 2016a. Blue Economy Development Framework: Growing the Blue Economy to Combat Poverty and Accelerate Prosperity. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/446441473349079068-0010022016/ original/AMCOECCBlueEconomyDevelopmentFramework.pdf. World Bank. 2016b. World Bank Group Climate Change Action Plan 2016–2020. Making Waves  Bibliography Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/ handle/10986/24451. World Bank. 2016c. World Bank Group Country Engagement: An Early-Stage Assessment of the Systematic Country Diagnostic and Country Partnership Framework Process and Implementation. Independent Evaluation Group. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/ documents-reports/documentdetail/261671492447399270/world-bank-group- 72 country-engagement-an-. World Bank. 2017a. “Albania—Coastal Zone MGMT.” Implementation Completion and Results Report Review ICRR0020263, Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank, Washington, DC. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/176891488328635875/Albania-COASTAL-ZONE-MGMT-APL-1. World Bank. 2017b. “Namibia—Coast Conservation and Management Project.” Implementation Completion and Results Report Review ICRR0020310, Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank, Washington, DC. http://documents. worldbank.org/curated/en/602121485210052624/Namibia-Coast-Conservation- and-Management-Project. World Bank. 2017c. The Sunken Billions Revisited: Progress and Challenges in Global Marine Fisheries. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle. net/10986/24056. World Bank. 2017d. Toward a Clean World for All: An IEG Evaluation of the World Bank Group’s Support to Pollution Management. Independent Evaluation Group. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/evaluations/ pollution. World Bank. 2017e. “What Is the Blue Economy?” Infographic, World Bank, Washington, DC. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/infographic/2017/06/06/ blue-economy. World Bank. 2018a. “Egypt, Arab Republic of—EG:GEF Alexandria CZM Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    73 Lake Mariout.” Implementation Completion and Results Report Review ICRR0021022, Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank, Washington, DC. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/157861525389457938/Egypt-Arab- Republic-of-EG-GEF-Alexandria-CZM-Lake-Mariout. World Bank. 2018b. “Morocco—MA-GEF Integrated Coastal Zone Mgt.” Implementation Completion and Results Report Review ICRR0021302, Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank, Washington, DC. http://documents. worldbank.org/curated/en/821161538145781490/Morocco-MA-GEF-Integrated- Coastal-Zone-Mgt. World Bank. 2018c. “Sovereign Blue Bond Issuance: Frequently Asked Questions.” World Bank, October 29, 2018. https:// www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2018/10/29/ sovereign-blue-bond-issuance-frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=The%20 blue%20bond%20is%20a,environmental%2C%20economic%20and%20cli- mate%20benefits. World Bank. 2018d. Tourism Theory of Change. Washington, DC: World Bank. http:// hdl.handle.net/10986/35459. World Bank. 2019a. Climate Change and Marine Fisheries in Africa: Assessing Vulnerability and Strengthening Adaptation Capacity. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/280891580715878729/ Climate-Change-and-Marine-Fisheries-in-Africa-Assessing-Vulnerability-and- Strengthening-Adaptation-Capacity. World Bank. 2019b. The World Bank Group’s Action Plan on Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience: Managing Risks for a More Resilient Future. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/519821547481031999/ The-World-Bank-Groups-Action-Plan-on-Climate-Change-Adaptation-and- Resilience-Managing-Risks-for-a-More-Resilient-Future. World Bank. 2020a. “Kiribati—Outer Islands Transport Infrastructure Investment Project.” Project Appraisal Document PAD3543, World Bank, Washington, DC. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/274641584324050481/Kiribati- Outer-Islands-Transport-Infrastructure-Investment-Project. World Bank. 2020b. World Bank Group Approaches to Mobilize Private Capital for Development. Independent Evaluation Group. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/evaluations/world-bank-groups-approach- mobilization-private-capital-development. World Bank. 2021a. “Gender, Marginalized People and Marine Spatial Planning: Improve Livelihoods, Empower Marginalized Groups, Bridge the Inequality Making Waves  Bibliography Gap.” Knowledge Factsheet 1, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. 2021b. “India—Integrated Coastal Zone Mgmt Project.” Implementation Completion and Results Report Review ICRR0022445, Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank, Washington, DC. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/404141622855878378/India-IN-Integrated-Coastal-Zone-Mgmt-Project. World Bank. 2021c. The Natural Resource Degradation and Vulnerability Nexus: An 74 Evaluation of the World Bank’s Support for Sustainable and Inclusive Natural Resource Management (2009–19). Independent Evaluation Group. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/evaluations/natural-resource- degradation-and-vulnerability-nexus. World Bank. 2021d. Riding the Blue Wave: Applying the Blue Economy Approach to World Bank Operations. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099655003182224941/ P16729802d9ba60170940500fc7f7d02655. World Bank. 2021e. World Bank Group Climate Change Action Plan 2021–2025: Supporting Green, Resilient, and Inclusive Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/35799. World Bank. 2022a. Blue Tourism in Islands and Small Tourism-Dependent Coastal States: Tools & Recovery Strategies. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2022b. “Caribbean Regional Oceanscape Project.” Implementation Completion and Results Report ICR5636, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. 2022c. “Comoros—Interisland Connectivity Project.” Project Appraisal Document PAD4509, World Bank, Washington, DC. http://documents.worldbank. org/curated/en/966311653399845824/Comoros-Interisland-Connectivity- Project. World Bank. 2022d. Gender Integration in the Blue Economy Portfolio: Review of Experiences and Future Opportunities. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2022e. Ghana—Country Climate and Development Report. Washington, Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    75 DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/38209. World Bank. 2022f. Plastic-Free Coastlines: A Contribution from the Maghreb to Address Marine Plastic Pollution. Washington, DC: World Bank. https:// documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099840405192226019/pdf/ P170596007a62909b09b97093cc82dd1f01.pdf. World Bank. 2022g. Reducing Disaster Risks from Natural Hazards: An Evaluation of the World Bank’s Support, Fiscal Years 2010–20. Independent Evaluation Group. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/evaluations/ reducing-disaster-risks-natural-hazards. World Bank. 2022h. Supporting Resilient Coastal Economies in Vietnam: Informing the Operationalization of Vietnam’s Marine Strategy with International Experiences. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2022i. Tackling Plastics Pollution: Towards Experience-Based Policy Guidance. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2022j. Transitioning to a Circular Economy: An Evaluation of the World Bank Group’s Support for Municipal Solid Waste Management (2010–20). Independent Evaluation Group. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://ieg. worldbankgroup.org/evaluations/transitioning-circular-economy. World Bank. 2022k. Where Is the Value in the Chain? Pathways out of Plastic Pollution. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2022l. “The World Bank’s Blue Economy Program and PROBLUE: Supporting Integrated and Sustainable Economic Development in a Healthy Ocean.” Brief, World Bank, Washington, DC. https://www.worldbank.org/ en/topic/environment/brief/the-world-banks-blue-economy-program-and- problue-frequently-asked-questions. World Bank. 2023a. “Ending Poverty on a Livable Planet: Report to Governors on World Bank Evolution.” Report DC2023-0004 for the Development Committee Meeting, October 12, 2023, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. 2023b. PROBLUE 2023 Annual Report. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/ documents-reports/documentdetail/099804010192330094/ idu06f4e5bd0062e204fda0a66108223ca4010cd. World Bank and European Commission. 2021. “BEDF: The Blue Economy Making Waves  Bibliography Development Framework.” World Bank Group, Washington, DC. https://thedocs. worldbank.org/en/doc/e5c1bdb0384e732de3cef6fd2eac41e5-0320072021/ original/BH023-BlueEconomy-FINAL-ENGLISH.pdf. World Bank and UN DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). 2017. The Potential of the Blue Economy: Increasing Long-Term Benefits of the Sustainable Use of Marine Resources for Small Island Developing States and Coastal Least Developed Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank. https:// 76 openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/26843. WTTC (World Travel and Tourism Council). 2022. Travel & Tourism Economic Impact 2022: Global Trends. London: WTTC. WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature). 2015. Principles for a Sustainable Blue Economy. Gland: WWF. https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?247477/ Principles%2Dfor%2Da%2DSustainable%2DBlue%2DEconomy. WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature). 2019. Stop the Flood of Plastic: How Mediterranean Countries Can Save Their Sea. Gland: WWF. https://www.wwf. fr/sites/default/files/doc-2019-06/20190607_Rapport_Stoppons_le_torrent_de_ plastique_WWF-min.pdf. Ye, Yimin, and Nicolas L. Gutierrez. 2017. “Ending Fishery Overexploitation by Expanding from Local Successes to Globalized Solutions.” Nature Ecology & Evolution 1: 0179. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0179. Ytreberg, Erik, Ida-Maja Hassellöv, Amanda T. Nylund, Mikael Hedblom, Adil Y. Al- Handal, and Angela Wulff. 2019. “Effects of Scrubber Washwater Discharge on Microplankton in the Baltic Sea.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 145 (August): 316–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.05.023. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group 77 APPENDIXES Independent Evaluation Group Making Waves World Bank Support for the Blue Economy, 2012–23 Appendix A. Evaluation Methods Evaluation Purpose and Questions The evaluation purpose is to assess how well the World Bank is supporting a blue economy approach to achieve sustainable and inclusive development of ocean and coastal economies. The overarching evaluation question is, How well is the World Bank supporting a blue economy approach to achieve sus- tainable and inclusive development of ocean and coastal states? We answer the overarching question by addressing the following two subquestions (the third subquestion on lessons, included in the Approach Paper, was subsumed into the 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? The evaluation design draws on a range of methods and triangulates ev- idence across a variety of data sources. Figure A.1 depicts the evaluation design and summarizes the methods and approaches used to answer the evaluation questions, which are fully explained in this appendix. Making Waves  Appendix A 80  valuation Design Figure A.1. E Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: CEM = Country Economic Memorandum; CCDR = Country Climate and Development Report; EQ = evaluation question; SCD = Systematic Country Diagnostic. * Nine out of 19 countries that have (i) an ongoing blue economy process and (ii) explicit World Bank blue economy support that is mature enough to evaluate. † Project Performance Assessment Reports were also undertaken in these countries. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    81 Evaluation Scope The evaluation is scoped as follows: » This is a World Bank–only evaluation (it excludes the International Finance Corporation and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency); however, certain findings are also relevant for the private sector. » The timeline for the evaluation is fiscal year (FY)12–23, but the focus is placed on FY16 onward, after the World Bank’s adoption of a blue economy approach. » The evaluation scope includes all 109 countries (listed in appendix B) with a coastline or any form of ocean access, including activities in their exclu- sive economic zones (within 200 nautical miles of their shoreline) where the World Bank has been engaged during the evaluation period but not activities in international waters (includes 32 small island developing states and 77 coastal states; figure A.2). » All Systematic Country Diagnostics (SCDs; n = 84), Country Economic Memorandums (n = 46), and Country Climate and Development Reports (CCDRs; n = 23) were reviewed. » The evaluation scope also covers all blue economy–focused analytic work published during the evaluation period (n = 38). » All PROBLUE trust fund grants (n = 250) were analyzed. » All lending and nonlending projects approved between 2016 and 2023 for four key sectors identified through sector and theme codes and text analytics were covered: (i) small-scale fisheries, (ii) plastics and marine pollution, (iii) Making Waves  Appendix A marine and coastal tourism, and (iv) maritime transport infrastructure. This portfolio includes 156 projects (69 advisory services and analytics [ASA] and 87 lending products) approved since 2016. » At the country case level (n = 9), the scope included all relevant policy and institutional issues and the full country portfolio (where authors examined cross-sectoral issues, engagement, and analytic and investment activities specific to the blue economy). 82  lobal Distribution of In-Scope Countries Figure A.2. G Covered by the evaluation Country cases: Bangladesh, Belize, Cabo Verde, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Morocco, St. Lucia (OECS), Seychelles; expanded validation review of the Pacific Islands Not covered by the evaluation Source: World Bank Cartography Unit, with data from the Independent Evaluation Group. Note: The number of in-scope countries is 109. OECS = Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. Evaluation Question 1: How Well Is the World Bank Articulating Blue Economy Aims, Including in Relation to Other Actors? To answer evaluation question 1, we first conducted a focused literature Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    83 review to understand the meaning of the blue economy concept, including areas of convergence and divergence within the literature. The evaluation team searched for blue economy definitions in peer-reviewed academic literature using Google Scholar. We restricted the results to journal articles published after the calendar year 2010 and considered the top 100 results sorted by relevance. We placed particular emphasis on journal articles that conducted systematic literature reviews of blue economy definitions and concepts (see, for example, Lee, Noh, and Khim 2020 and Voyer et al. 2018). We synthesized approximately 20 different blue economy definitions and concepts that were gathered from the prior steps. We systematically deter- mined the common and divergent elements to inform our evaluation queries. Findings from the focused literature review. Although there is no single definition of the blue economy, the literature shows that there are certain agreed parameters. First, there is convergence around the idea that the blue economy concept refers to the achievement of triple-bottom-line objectives (financial, social, and environmental) and that it requires an integrated approach across sectors, data collection, and spatial planning and decision- making tools. It involves trade-offs based on social preferences and the identification of sector synergies to achieve win-wins. The divergent areas relate to the relative weight assigned to the triple-bottom-line objectives and the reference to certain sectors, such as oil and gas, that some donors include but that others exclude from their blue economy concepts. Second, we used content analysis to determine the presence, meaning, and evolution of the blue economy concept as it has been expressed in blue economy–focused World Bank analytic products over time. To do this, we identified a cohort of World Bank–published analytics that include a fo- cus on the blue economy. We identified 38 discrete pieces of such analytic work—at the global, regional, and country levels—published during the evaluation period (see appendix C for the list of publications). This list was derived by searching for “blue economy” and “blue” in the World Bank’s Documents and Reports site, which is the official disclosure mechanism for the World Bank Group’s final reports. Third, we used content analysis to assess how the blue economy concept is articulated in key partner strategies and publications. Key partners are those partners that have provided joint upstream advisory, analytic, or (co- or parallel) financing support for blue economy development, including through joint publications (for example, the European Commission, the Making Waves  Appendix A European Union, the Commonwealth, and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs), and that have collaborated with the World Bank through blue economy processes (for example, the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP] Finance Initiative, and the UNEP Sustainable Blue Economy Initiative) and implementing partners that have developed blue economy principles quoted by the World Bank in its analytic work (for example, in- ternational nongovernmental organizations, such as the World Wide Fund 84 for Nature). To conduct this assessment, the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) examined how each actor defined blue economy in its publicly avail- able documents obtained from a major search engine. The team devised a specific search strategy that combined keywords (for example, “blue econ- omy” and “ocean economy”) and an actor or a sector of interest as search strings (for example, “blue economy” and “World Bank”). We included key multilateral development organizations in this space, such as the Bank Group, the United Nations, the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the African Development Bank, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and also considered nongovernmental organizations (for example, the World Wide Fund for Nature) and private sector actors by spec- ifying sectors that are highly relevant to blue economy, such as shipping, fisheries, and tourism. We included a wide range of actors from development, environment, and business to capture the conservation and growth aspects of ocean and coastal resources. Our search was limited to documents pub- lished after the calendar year 2010, and we considered only the top 50 results sorted by relevance. The publications put forth by these partners are includ- ed in the bibliography, and select examples are referenced in the “Corporate Articulation of the Blue Economy” section in chapter 2 and box 2.1. Fourth, to test assumptions from the content analysis and to learn more about partner blue economy initiatives, we convened global expert in- Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    85 terviews. We conducted 24 anonymized key informant interviews with PROBLUE donors (Canada, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, and Sweden), the United Nations Development Programme, the UNEP Sustainable Blue Economy Initiative, the UNEP Finance Initiative, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Global Environment Facility, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the International Coral Reef Initiative, the Ocean Risk and Resilience Action Alliance, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, and individual global experts who are helping shape global and country policy related to the blue economy. Global expert interview selection criteria. Interviewees were selected based on two main criteria: (i) diversity of organizational viewpoints and (ii) credibility, as determined based on their extensive expertise in the blue economy space. To achieve organizational diversity, interviews were conducted with the fol- lowing individuals: » Leaders of blue economy programs within intergovernmental organizations » Leaders of blue economy programs within international nongovernmental organizations » Senior consultants who had experience with regional and national blue econ- omy projects » Globally experienced entrepreneurs actively involved in blue economy in- vestment » Thought leaders in research organizations with a blue economy specializa- tion To ensure credibility, individuals were selected based on the following: » Extensive international blue economy experience » Firsthand knowledge of the blue economy investment landscape » Familiarity with the current role of the World Bank relevant to the blue econ- omy Interview methodology and structure. The interviews were semistructured. The structured part of the interview protocol included a set of core ques- tions focusing on the interviewees’ understanding of (i) the blue economy approach and how they would define it; (ii) the World Bank’s blue economy definition and approach and the interviewees’ views thereof; and (iii) the World Bank’s past, current, and future role in the blue economy landscape, including as a partner, convener, knowledge broker, financier, and so on. Making Waves  Appendix A The interview protocol also included an unstructured space to probe these responses, in part to better understand interviewees’ points of view based on their organizational and experiential backgrounds. Interview processing and analysis. After conducting the interviews, we used a systematic content analysis approach to process and thematically code the responses. The coding categories were developed both a priori, based on our abovementioned core questions, and inductively, emerging from 86 patterns and recurring themes identified in the interview data. For example, we analyzed feedback provided across interviews regarding the World Bank’s corporate blue economy definition, which allowed us to identify core tenets that were consistently mentioned as lacking. Decisions on coding categories were iterative and discussed among the team to ensure comprehensiveness in capturing the areas of convergence and the nuances in the interview data. Fifth, we used content analyses of core World Bank country diagnostics to assess how often and well the blue economy is integrated into World Bank country diagnostics. IEG reviewed all SCDs (n = 84, of which two were re- gional SCDs), Country Economic Memorandums (n = 46), and CCDRs (n = 23) for the 109 countries in scope. To systematically assess the inte- gration of the blue economy concepts in these documents, we developed (i) coding templates for each diagnostic that allowed for content analysis across the cohorts (shown in tables A.1 and A.2) and (ii) a scoring rubric with criteria to detect the existence, consistency, and comprehensiveness of blue economy themes (shown in table A.3). Sixth, we analyzed sequencing. We analyzed the presence and type of analytics—both blue economy–focused analytics and sector analytics— that were available to teams producing country diagnostics. To do this, we created a country-level data set that includes (i) information on the country diagnostics (SCDs, Country Economic Memorandums, and CCDRs) and publication dates and blue economy content; (ii) all World Bank–produced Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    87 blue economy–focused analyses and dates (in either ASA or lending); and (iii) all sector analyses and dates (in either ASA or lending). The content and sequencing were then analyzed to arrive at results that are captured in the “Articulation of the Blue Economy in Country Diagnostics” section in chapter 2.  ystematic Country Diagnostic and Country Economic Table A.1. S Memorandum Coding Template Topic Qualitive Text Used for Analysis Include publication date, team composition, country Basic information typology, and context Presence of marine and Yes or No; record descriptions of sector issues coastal sector issues and notes sectors covered Yes or No; record language verbatim (in notes, Presence of blue economy document whether this is explicit or implicit—that is, language and concepts the term blue economy is not used, but the concept is well explained) Expanded analysis of blue Record references to blue economy concepts, economy themes including coverage of triple-bottom-line objectives, » Sector coordination how the blue economy is integrated into sectors, and how sector coordination is referred to; » Coverage of financial, envi- provide specific examples ronmental, and social aims Record any discussion of trade-offs and synergies » Trade-offs and synergies within and between sectors Whether the diagnostic articulates links between Marine-terrestrial link terrestrial and marine ecosystems Whether the diagnostic cites any blue Evidence and knowledge gap economy–related evidence and knowledge gaps Whether there is an analysis of vulnerable groups related to blue economy and marine sectors and their location. Covered vulnerable groups are Indigenous Vulnerable groups peoples, historically disadvantaged groups, women, small-scale fishers, low-income earners, general coastal communities, tourism operators, seasonal workers, migrants, youth, and persons with disabilities Whether the diagnostic mentions the role of governments, multilateral institution donors, and nongovernmental organizations active in the blue Other actors or partners economy space Making Waves  Appendix A Record “who” and their activities relative to the World Bank’s role Whether the diagnostic mentions sustainable and innovative financing mechanisms, such as blue bonds Financing mechanisms and debt for nature swaps, and record how; provide examples Source: Independent Evaluation Group. 88  ountry Climate and Development Report Coding Template Table A.2. C Question Q.1 Are blue economy sectors included in the CCDR? Yes or No. If yes, record sectors. Are any blue economy sectors identified as a contributor to climate impacts? Q.2  Yes or No. If yes, record sectors. Are any blue economy sectors identified as being at risk from climate change? Q.3  Yes or No. If yes, which sectors? Does the CCDR explicitly mention the blue economy? Yes or No. If yes, where and Q.4  what is the nature of the reference (in a section, throughout, or passing mention)? Does the CCDR present a comprehensive understanding of the blue economy? Q.5  Please explain. Does the CCDR effectively capture the synergies between climate and the blue Q.6  economy? Yes or No. If yes, please provide evidence. Is the blue economy identified as a strategy to help achieve climate targets? Q.7  Yes or No. If yes, please provide evidence. Q.8 What are your overall reflections on the blue economy content of the CCDR? If available, how has the interpretation of the blue economy shifted between the SCD Q.9  and the CCDR? Does the CCDR mention climate change impacts on marine ecosystems? Q.10  Yes or No. If yes, please explain. Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: CCDR = Country Climate and Development Report; Q = question; SCD = Systematic Country Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    89 Diagnostic. Country diagnostic scoring and quantitative analysis tools. Following the content analysis, we devised two rubrics for scoring SCDs and CCDRs, re- spectively. The goal is to compare how well the blue economy concept was integrated across the 84 SCDs and 23 CCDRs. The scoring rubrics are sum- marized in table A.3.  ystematic Country Diagnostic and Country Climate and Table A.3. S Development Report Score Definitions Definition Score SCD CCDR SCD does not reference the blue CCDR does not reference the blue 0 economy. economy. CCDR explicitly refers to the blue SCD explicitly refers to the blue economy, and coastal and marine economy but lacks full articulation sectors may be referenced, but there 1 of commonly understood meaning, is no articulation of how to accurately tends to treat sectors in silos, and apply the blue economy concept as neglects to identify trade-offs. a way to achieve climate change and development goals. SCD explicitly refers to the blue economy; comprehensively explains CCDR explicitly refers to the blue the blue economy as a way of economy and demonstrates a balancing economic, environmental, comprehensive understanding of 2 and social aims; and refers to the potential of the blue economy cross-sectoral coordination, planning, approach as a way to achieve climate and identification of synergies and change and development goals. trade-offs. Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: CCDR = Country Climate and Development Report; SCD = Systematic Country Diagnostic. Evaluation Question 2: How Well Is the World Bank Operationalizing Blue Economy Aims? To assess how well the World Bank is operationalizing the blue economy, we conducted analyses at the country and sector levels. At the country level, we undertook country case and regional studies and key informant interviews. Making Waves  Appendix A At the country and regional levels, we assessed how well the World Bank is supporting enabling conditions for blue economy development (that is, poli- cies, institutions, planning, and blue finance). At the sector level, we focused on four established sectors critical for the blue economy: (i) small-scale fish- eries, (ii) plastics and marine pollution, (iii) marine and coastal tourism, and (iv) maritime transport infrastructure. For each sector, we conducted reviews of relevant literature (including external and internal publications) and port- folio review and analyses (ASA and lending) and used interviews with key 90 World Bank staff to test emerging findings. 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. Representative Case Studies We conducted case studies in 9 out of 19 client countries that have (i) an on- going national blue economy process and (ii) explicit World Bank operational support on the blue economy. Of these 19 client countries, several countries were not selected for case analyses because the World Bank operational support was too recent to evaluate or because IEG had recently conducted missions to that country (that is, Mozambique). A national blue economy process includes the development of dedicated blue economy policy, plan, strategy, and institutional frameworks that aim to improve institutional coordination and policy coherence and to harmonize and coordinate the implementation of the blue economy. The nine cases are Bangladesh, Belize, Cabo Verde, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Morocco, the Seychelles, and St. Lucia (the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States). An expanded validation review was also conducted for the Pacific Islands. The country selection was designed to derive evidence from a diverse range of country situations (small island developing states and coastal states in different regions). Case study data collection. We adopted a detailed case protocol (table A.4) to ensure data collection and analytic consistency across cases. Case Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    91 authors were experienced researchers with a combination of blue economy, governance, and evaluation expertise. For each case study, interviews were conducted with relevant World Bank staff; government ministries and agen- cies (for example, finance, blue economy, environment, fisheries, agriculture, tourism, transport, energy, gender, defense); local government; project management and implementation units; regional organizations; local subject matter experts; donor agencies (for example, the European Union, the German Agency for International Cooperation, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank); nongovernmental orga- nizations; civil society; and associations.  ase Study Protocol Table A.4. C Case Study Protocol Country context 1. Describe the evolution of the blue economy approach in the country: What is the status of your blue economy approach (strategy, road map, policy, a.  and so on)? When was the blue economy concept first initiated explicitly? Does this represent b.  a significant shift in approach or is it a continuation of existing policies and strategy? c. What explains the genesis of the blue economy approach? d. Who or what combination of actors was responsible for blue economy development? What, if any, new institutional arrangements have been established from the e.  adoption of the blue economy approach? Identify key components of the policy and regulatory and institutional framework 2.  underlying the blue economy approach: a. What key laws and regulations govern the blue space? What key policies, strategies, or plans (for example, marine spatial planning, climate b.  change action plan, and so on) underlie or are part of the country’s blue economy approach? What institutions (for example, ministries, departments, academic institutions, c.  nongovernmental organizations, and regional organizations) are the most important players implicated in the blue economy approach? What, if any, national, regional, and international agreements or commitments are d.  implicated in the country’s blue economy approach? Assess relevant political and country contextual factors that affect the blue economy 3.  approach: a. Political considerations b. Economic and sector reliance on marine and coastal areas c. Reconciliation of divergent sector interests d. Climate change (for example, carbon finance, Paris alignment, and so on) Social issues (for example, fragility, conflict, and violence; migration; job creation; e.  gender; and so on) f. COVID-19 Making Waves  Appendix A g. Other issues, as relevant Role of the World Bank Describe and assess the evolution of the role of the World Bank over time (including 1.  present day) in supporting the blue economy approach (including in relationship to other actors): Knowledge broker and thought leader, including through dialogue and analytic work a.  Financier (including through lending, trust funds, and policy support) b.  (continued) 92 Case Study Protocol Role of the World Bank c. Partner (for example, with other actors’ initiatives) Coordinator (for example, country capacity and World Bank alignment with existing d.  coordination mechanisms)  onvener (catalyzing discussion and dialogue among relevant stakeholders) e. C f. Other Depending on the status of blue economy development in the country, how well is 2.  the World Bank helping the government and other clients achieve blue economy development? How well aligned are operations in coastal and marine areas with blue economy 3.  principles and triple-bottom-line marine and coastal health, sustainable growth, and social aims? PROBLUE financing: How has financing from the PROBLUE trust fund been used to 4.  support blue economy aims? Other financing: Describe how different forms of financing (including trust funds oth- 5.  er than PROBLUE, private sector, or client financing) have facilitated traction on the blue economy approach. Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Case study comparative analysis. The case narratives generated by each researcher were then discussed as a group in a workshop format. The com- parative case analysis workshop, which took place in September 2023, brought together country case study authors, blue economy advisers to the Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    93 evaluation team, and core evaluation team members. The workshop was conducted virtually over a two-day period, with each session lasting half a day. The group discussions were structured around issues that had emerged from the case narratives, which enabled the participants to share, compare, and contrast findings and to draw within- and across-case lessons. The discussions factored in country characteristics, including distinctions be- tween island and coastal states, the spectrum of higher to lower capacity in governance, the extent of World Bank presence and engagement, and other organizations and partners. The anchoring issues were as follows: 1. Policy, strategy, and institutional mechanisms for blue economy develop- ment 2. Governance approaches versus technical approaches and sectoral entry points 3. Role of regional institutions (mandates, capacities, and collaboration with the World Bank) 4. Role of and sequencing between World Bank analytic and operational support 5. Application of and interlinks between spatial planning approaches—that is, marine spatial planning and integrated coastal zone management 6. Beneficiaries of the blue economy: vulnerable resource users and cross-cutting issues. 7. Financing vehicles (role of PROBLUE, blue finance, and so on) Project performance assessments and the use of Earth observation techniques. IEG conducted three Project Performance Assessment Reports (PPARs) as an input into the blue economy evaluation to develop a more granular understanding of, and record lessons about, what it takes to develop the blue economy by studying the implementation of some of its key tenets. A PPAR is IEG’s field-based evaluation instrument that assesses projects financed for two purposes: (i) to improve the performance of World Bank projects by identifying lessons from experience and (ii) to ensure the integ- rity of the World Bank’s self-evaluation process and verify that the World Bank’s work is producing the expected results. IEG selected three projects that included a common approach—namely, integrated coastal zone man- agement and marine spatial planning—in countries that are developing their blue economy action plans, institutions, or policies. This work corresponded to a section in the evaluation on what it takes to operationalize blue econo- Making Waves  Appendix A my aims and was used to supplement other evidence gathered through the literature reviews, portfolio reviews, and country case study missions, which also conducted key informant interviews (the PPARs in two of the three cas- es were embedded into the case study missions to derive mutual learning). The projects were as follows: 1. Belize Marine Conservation and Climate Adaptation Project (P131408; FY15–20) 94 2. Indonesia Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Project Phase II (P071316; FY04–12) and Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program—Coral Triangle Initiative (P127813; FY14–22) 3. Morocco Integrated Coastal Zone Management (P121271; FY13–17) In Belize, because there was a metric on mangrove cover, IEG used data from Earth observation technologies (geographic information systems) and current studies on the topic conducted by national and local entities to vali- date and weigh in on the status of mangrove cover and health in the project areas. This led to new evidence and a finding in the PPAR on ecosystem health, which was not adequately measured by the project’s monitoring and evaluation system. This analysis—covering geographic information sys- tem observations from 2010, 2015, and 2020—focused on mangrove cover and health within three Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute planning regions covered by the Belize Marine Conservation and Climate Adaptation Project: Caye Caulker, Belize Central, and South Northern. The analysis used synthetic aperture radar data from Bunting et al. (2022) to calculate mangrove cover, which entailed clipping data for specific years, applying change detection algorithms, and generating summary statistics. To assess mangrove health, the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index was calculated using Landsat satellite images, which included gap filling, atmo- spheric correction, and consistent classification across areas. The analysis Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    95 found a net deterioration in mangrove cover and health across the three regions during the project’s duration. This trend was most pronounced in Caye Caulker. The findings of a general decline in mangrove cover and health are consistent with observations from other similar studies conduct- ed in Belize. Portfolio Review and Analysis and Content Analyses of Blue Economy in Established Sectors Blue economy development requires sectors to transition away from un- sustainable approaches toward activities that actively seek to achieve triple-bottom-line objectives. This transition requires “new practices and ap- proaches that can both enhance the sustainability of these sectors and limit, to the extent possible, the negative impacts they have on ocean health” (World Bank 2021, 18). It also requires policies that actively seek out oppor- tunities for sector synergies that maximize benefits and address trade-offs. Four sectors critical for blue economy development were chosen for this analysis: (i) small-scale fisheries, (ii) plastics and marine pollution, (iii) marine and coastal tourism, and (iv) maritime transport infrastructure. Although the sectors covered are not exhaustive, the four sectors were chosen because they were identified in the blue economy literature as being integral for achieving blue economy aims and are among the most estab- lished and because the World Bank had been working in these sectors for decades (table A.5).  stablished and Emerging Industries in the Blue Economy Table A.5. E Space Established Emerging » Capture fisheries » Marine aquaculture » Seafood processing » Deepwater and ultra-deepwater » Shipping oil and gas » Ports » Offshore wind energy » Shipbuilding and repair » Ocean renewable energy » Offshore oil and gas (shallow water) » Marine and seabed mining » Marine manufacturing and » Maritime safety and surveillance construction » Marine biotechnology » Maritime and coastal tourism » High-tech marine products » Marine business services and services » Marine research and development » Others and education » Dredging Making Waves  Appendix A Source: OECD 2016, as cited in World Bank 2021. Note: “In a number of ‘established’ sectors of the ocean economy, such as fisheries, shipping, and waste management … the results of unplanned or unsustainable development [have] already become apparent and new approaches have been identified—for example, limiting open access in the case of fisheries, decarbonization and clean ports in the case of shipping, or a circular economy approach in the case of plastic pollution. The difficulty in adopting these improved practices is that much of the investments made thus far have to be replaced—the old destroyed to make way for the new, as it were. A Blue Economy approach can help finance and facilitate this transition” (World Bank 2021, 18–19). The total portfolio of projects examined included all 156 projects (69 ASA and 87 lending products) approved between FY16 and FY23 and mapped 96 to the four sectors chosen for review. The start date of 2016 was chosen to reflect the point at which the World Bank adopted a blue economy ap- proach. See appendix C for project lists. The portfolio was identified using relevant sector or theme codes and text analysis of operational data to help ensure comprehensiveness (table A.6). We performed the search in key parts of project descriptors (that is, project titles, abstracts of project documents, project development objectives, project descriptions, activity summaries, component titles, component text where available, and indicator titles). We then manually screened the portfolio to remove false positives and exclud- ed projects carried out in landlocked countries, countries without ocean access, and areas located far from the coast (that is, activities financed were not in coastal areas).  ector, Theme, and Search Taxonomy Used for Portfolio Table A.6. S Identification Secondary Criteria Primary Criteria (At Least One Should Be Met) Keywords Keywords Topic Sectors Themes or phrases or phrases Coastal zone ICZM and MSP management Coastal zone; Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    97 management of coast; coastal ICZM and MSP management; marine spatial planning Small-scale Fisheries fisheries Fisheries Small-scale policies and fisheries institutions Fish; aquacult; Small-scale shrimp; crab; fisheries lobster (continued) Secondary Criteria Primary Criteria (At Least One Should Be Met) Keywords Keywords Topic Sectors Themes or phrases or phrases Touri; hotel; Marine and resort; Coast; ocean; sea; Tourism coastal tourism hospitali; island; beach recreational Ports Maritime Seaport; vessel; Coast; ocean; sea; and wa- transport ship; fleet island terways Marine pollution Marine Pollut; plastic; waste Marine pollution Ocean Pollut; plastic; waste Marine pollution Sea Pollut; plastic; waste Marine pollution Coast Pollut; plastic; waste Runoff; waste; Marine pollution Nutrient pollution Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: ICZM = integrated coastal zone management; MSP = marine spatial planning. Sector analysis methods. For each sector, we used relevant sector literature (including external and internal publications) to understand and explain the challenges facing the sector within the blue economy and, relatedly, the way a blue economy approach is envisioned to address these challenges. To do this, the evaluation team reviewed relevant internal World Bank publi- cations as identified in the abovementioned sector portfolios and reviewed peer-reviewed and gray literature as identified through a comprehensive Making Waves  Appendix A search on Google and Google Scholar. External literature was appraised and selected based on its relevance (to the evaluation purpose and objectives and to sector understanding within the context of the blue economy), credibili- ty, and recency. We then used these analyses to create portfolio review and analysis criteria for the review of the sector portfolios (ASA and lending). We analyzed both design (alignment with blue economy aims) and results (including monitoring and evaluation). We complemented this exercise with 98 key interviews of World Bank sector technical experts to better understand context. PROBLUE portfolio analyses. We reviewed the categories and distribu- tion of PROBLUE grants to understand how this trust fund is supporting operations to achieve blue economy aims and conducted interviews with PROBLUE donors and staff. The PROBLUE multidonor trust fund has pro- vided 250 grants across 84 ASAs and 46 lending operations. We analyzed the distribution of PROBLUE’s grants to various Global Practices over time and conducted a human resource analysis to identify the recipient task team leaders of PROBLUE grants. Additionally, we analyzed grant details to un- derstand the activities supported by PROBLUE in lending projects across different Global Practices. PROBLUE-financed activities were also analyzed in the case studies and sector studies to assess the contributions of the trust fund in blue economy development. Limitations The main methodological limitation was the nascency of the blue economy approach (which was rolled out by the World Bank as a concept in 2016–17). IEG’s assessment showed that although analytics have been incorporating the theme, it has not yet been fully operationalized. This limitation was recognized at the Approach Paper stage and informed the evaluation design and questions. IEG agreed to conduct a forward-looking evaluation to inform Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    99 the future development of the blue economy approach in the World Bank. Although the approach had been rolled out in World Bank analytics, it was also too soon to include the International Finance Corporation in the evalua- tion, limiting coverage of some financing aspects, including the International Finance Corporation’s support for blue finance principles and pilots. Another limitation, as revealed during the evaluation process, was the absence of a measurement system for the blue economy in the World Bank. The World Bank has a flagship ASA on the topic but not a dedicated theory of change or measurement and learning system. Although PROBLUE has an annual report, it does not measure blue economy progress at the project or country level. Moreover, there are fewer than a handful of lending projects that have explicit blue economy goals in their project development objectives. Because it’s an emerging field, knowledge on the blue economy is also re- tained by a relatively small group of experts and policy makers. Recognizing this, IEG has shifted its staffing of the blue economy evaluation in midcourse to add more policy expertise to the team, including consultants who worked with governments on formulating blue economy policy and strategies. Making Waves  Appendix A 100 References Bunting, Pete, Ake Rosenqvist, Lammert Hilarides, Richard M. Lucas, Nathan Thomas, Takeo Tadono, Thomas A. Worthington, Mark Spalding, Nicholas J. Murray, and Lisa-Maria Rebelo. 2022. “Global Mangrove Extent Change 1996–2020: Global Mangrove Watch Version 3.0.” Remote Sensing 14 (15): 3657. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14153657. Lee, Ki-Hoon, Junsung Noh, and Jong Seong Khim. 2020. “The Blue Economy and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals: Challenges and Opportunities.” Environment International 137: 105528. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105528. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2016. The Ocean Economy in 2030. Paris: OECD. Voyer, Michelle, Genevieve Quirk, Alistair McIlgorm, and Kamal Azmi. 2018. “Shades of Blue: What Do Competing Interpretations of the Blue Economy Mean for Oceans Governance?” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 20 (5): 595– 616. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2018.1473153. World Bank. 2021. Riding the Blue Wave: Applying the Blue Economy Approach to World Bank Operations. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank. org/curated/en/099655003182224941/P16729802d9ba60170940500fc7f7d02655. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    101 Appendix B. Countries Included in the Evaluation Income Lending No. Economy Region Group Category SIDS SCD CEM CCDR 1 Albania ECA UMIC IBRD No Yes Yes n.a. 2 Algeria MENA LMIC IBRD No n.a. n.a. n.a. 3 Angola AFE LMIC IBRD No Yes Yes Yes 4 Antigua and Barbuda LAC HIC IBRD Yes Yes Yes n.a. 5 Argentina LAC UMIC IBRD No Yes n.a. Yes 6 Bangladesh SAR LMIC IDA No Yes Yes Yes 7 Belize LAC UMIC IBRD Yes Yes n.a. n.a. 8 Benin AFW LMIC IDA No Yes Yes n.a. 9 Bosnia and Herzegovina ECA UMIC IBRD No Yes n.a. n.a. 10 Brazil LAC UMIC IBRD No Yes Yes n.a. 11 Bulgaria ECA UMIC IBRD No Yes Yes n.a. 12 Cabo Verde AFW LMIC Blend Yes Yes Yes n.a. 13 Cambodia EAP LMIC IDA No Yes n.a. n.a. (continued) Income Lending No. Economy Region Group Category SIDS SCD CEM CCDR 14 Cameroon AFW LMIC Blend No Yes Yes Yes 15 Chile LAC HIC IBRD No Yes n.a. n.a. 16 China EAP UMIC IBRD No Yes n.a. Yes 17 Colombia LAC UMIC IBRD No Yes Yes n.a. 18 Comoros AFE LMIC IDA Yes Yes Yes n.a. 19 Congo, Dem. Rep. AFE LIC IDA No Yes Yes n.a. 20 Congo, Rep. AFW LMIC Blend No Yes Yes n.a. 21 Costa Rica LAC UMIC IBRD No Yes n.a. n.a. 22 Côte d’Ivoire AFW LMIC IDA No Yes Yes n.a. 23 Croatia ECA HIC IBRD No Yes Yes n.a. 24 Djibouti MENA LMIC IDA No Yes n.a. n.a. 25 Dominica LAC UMIC Blend Yes Yes Yes n.a. 26 Dominican Republic LAC UMIC IBRD Yes Yes Yes n.a. 27 Ecuador LAC UMIC IBRD No Yes n.a. n.a. 28 Egypt, Arab Rep. MENA LMIC IBRD No Yes n.a. Yes 29 El Salvador LAC UMIC IBRD No Yes n.a. n.a. 30 Equatorial Guinea AFW UMIC IBRD No n.a. n.a. n.a. (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    103 104 Making Waves  Appendix B Income Lending No. Economy Region Group Category SIDS SCD CEM CCDR 31 Eritrea AFE LIC IDA No n.a. n.a. n.a. 32 Fiji EAP UMIC Blend Yes Yes n.a. n.a. 33 Gabon AFW UMIC IBRD No Yes Yes n.a. 34 Gambia, The AFW LIC IDA No Yes n.a. n.a. 35 Georgia ECA UMIC IBRD No Yes Yes n.a. 36 Ghana AFW LMIC IDA No Yes Yes Yes 37 Grenada LAC UMIC Blend Yes Yes Yes n.a. 38 Guatemala LAC UMIC IBRD No Yes n.a. n.a. 39 Guinea AFW LMIC IDA No Yes n.a. n.a. 40 Guinea-Bissau AFW LIC IDA Yes Yes Yes n.a. 41 Guyana LAC HIC IDA Yes Yes n.a. n.a. 42 Haiti LAC LMIC IDA Yes Yes n.a. n.a. 43 Honduras LAC LMIC IDA No Yes n.a. n.a. 44 India SAR LMIC IBRD No Yes n.a. n.a. 45 Indonesia EAP UMIC IBRD No Yes n.a. Yes 46 Iran, Islamic Rep. MENA LMIC IBRD No n.a. n.a. n.a. 47 Iraq MENA UMIC IBRD No Yes Yes Yes (continued) Income Lending No. Economy Region Group Category SIDS SCD CEM CCDR 48 Jamaica LAC UMIC IBRD Yes Yes n.a. n.a. 49 Jordan MENA LMIC IBRD No Yes n.a. Yes 50 Kenya AFE LMIC Blend No Yes Yes n.a. 51 Kiribati EAP LMIC IDA Yes Yes n.a. n.a. 52 Lebanon MENA LMIC IBRD No Yes n.a. n.a. 53 Liberia AFW LIC IDA No Yes n.a. n.a. 54 Libya MENA UMIC IBRD No n.a. n.a. n.a. 55 Madagascar AFE LIC IDA No Yes Yes n.a. 56 Malaysia EAP UMIC IBRD No n.a. Yes n.a. 57 Maldives SAR UMIC IDA Yes Yes n.a. n.a. 58 Marshall Islands EAP UMIC IDA Yes Yes Yes n.a. 59 Mauritania AFW LMIC IDA No Yes Yes n.a. 60 Mauritius AFE UMIC IBRD Yes Yes Yes n.a. 61 Mexico LAC UMIC IBRD No Yes n.a. n.a. 62 Micronesia, Fed. Sts. EAP LMIC IDA Yes Yes n.a. n.a. 63 Montenegro ECA UMIC IBRD No Yes Yes n.a. 64 Morocco MENA LMIC IBRD No Yes Yes Yes (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    105 106 Making Waves  Appendix B Income Lending No. Economy Region Group Category SIDS SCD CEM CCDR 65 Mozambique AFE LIC IDA No Yes Yes n.a. 66 Myanmar EAP LMIC IDA No Yes n.a. n.a. 67 Namibia AFE UMIC IBRD No Yes n.a. n.a. 68 Nicaragua LAC LMIC IDA No Yes n.a. n.a. 69 Nigeria AFW LMIC Blend No Yes Yes n.a. 70 Pakistan SAR LMIC Blend No Yes Yes Yes 71 Palau EAP UMIC IBRD Yes Yes n.a. n.a. 72 Panama LAC HIC IBRD No Yes n.a. n.a. 73 Papua New Guinea EAP LMIC Blend Yes Yes Yes n.a. 74 Peru LAC UMIC IBRD No Yes Yes Yes 75 Philippines EAP LMIC IBRD No Yes n.a. Yes 76 Poland ECA HIC IBRD No Yes Yes n.a. 77 Romania ECA HIC IBRD No Yes Yes n.a. 78 Russian Federation ECA UMIC IBRD No n.a. n.a. n.a. 79 Samoa EAP LMIC IDA Yes Yes n.a. n.a. 80 São Tomé and Príncipe AFE LMIC IDA Yes Yes Yes n.a. 81 Senegal AFW LMIC IDA No Yes n.a. n.a. (continued) Income Lending No. Economy Region Group Category SIDS SCD CEM CCDR 82 Seychelles AFE HIC IBRD Yes Yes n.a. n.a. 83 Sierra Leone AFW LIC IDA No Yes n.a. n.a. 84 Solomon Islands EAP LMIC IDA Yes Yes n.a. n.a. 85 Somalia AFE LIC IDA No Yes Yes n.a. 86 South Africa AFE UMIC IBRD No Yes n.a. Yes 87 Sri Lanka SAR LMIC IDA No Yes n.a. n.a. 88 St. Kitts and Nevis LAC HIC IBRD Yes Yes Yes n.a. 89 St. Lucia LAC UMIC Blend Yes Yes Yes n.a. 90 St. Vincent and the Grenadines LAC UMIC Blend Yes Yes Yes n.a. 91 Sudan AFE LIC IDA No n.a. Yes n.a. 92 Suriname LAC UMIC IBRD Yes n.a. n.a. n.a. 93 Syrian Arab Republic MENA LIC IDA No n.a. n.a. n.a. 94 Tanzania AFE LMIC IDA No Yes Yes n.a. 95 Thailand EAP UMIC IBRD No Yes n.a. n.a. 96 Timor-Leste EAP LMIC Blend Yes Yes Yes n.a. 97 Togo AFW LIC IDA No Yes Yes n.a. 98 Tonga EAP UMIC IDA Yes Yes n.a. n.a. (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    107 108 Making Waves  Appendix B Income Lending No. Economy Region Group Category SIDS SCD CEM CCDR 99 Trinidad and Tobago LAC HIC IBRD Yes n.a. n.a. n.a. 100 Tunisia MENA LMIC IBRD No Yes n.a. n.a. 101 Türkiye ECA UMIC IBRD No Yes Yes Yes 102 Tuvalu EAP UMIC IDA Yes Yes n.a. n.a. 103 Ukraine ECA LMIC IBRD No Yes Yes n.a. 104 Uruguay LAC HIC IBRD No Yes n.a. n.a. 105 Vanuatu EAP LMIC IDA Yes Yes n.a. n.a. 106 Venezuela, RB LAC IBRD No n.a. n.a. n.a. 107 Viet Nam EAP LMIC IBRD No Yes Yes Yes 108 West Bank and Gaza MENA No n.a. n.a. n.a. 109 Yemen, Rep. MENA LIC IDA No n.a. Yes n.a. Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: AFE = Eastern and Southern Africa; AFW = Western and Central Africa; CCDR = Country Climate and Development Report; CEM = Country Economic Memorandum; EAP = East Asia and Pacific; ECA = Europe and Central Asia; HIC = high-income country; IBRD = International Bank for Reconstruction and Development; IDA = International Development Association; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; LIC = low-income country; LMIC = lower-middle-income country; MENA = Middle East and North Africa; n.a. = not applicable; SAR = South Asia; SCD = Systematic Country Diagnostic; SIDS = small island developing states; UMIC = upper-middle-income country. Appendix C. Evaluation Portfolio  lue Economy–Focused Published Analytic Work Table C.1. B Level Source IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2021. Blue Natural Capital: Enhancing Business Outcomes and Sustainability of Coastal Tourism Global Markets. Washington, DC: IFC. IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2022. Guidelines: Blue Finance—Guidance for Financing the Blue Economy, Building on the Global Green Bond Principles and the Green Loan Principles. Washington, DC: IFC. Global PROBLUE website (accessed May 11, 2023), https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/problue. World Bank. 2012. “Helping to Better Manage the World’s Oceans: The World Bank and the Drive for ‘Blue Growth.’” Brief 92645, World Global Bank, Washington, DC. Global World Bank. 2017. “What Is the Blue Economy?” Infographic, World Bank, Washington, DC. Global World Bank. 2021. “Blue Public Expenditure Review.” Guidance Note, World Bank, Washington, DC. Global World Bank. 2021. Riding the Blue Wave: Applying the Blue Economy Approach to World Bank Operations. Washington, DC: World Bank. Global World Bank. 2022. Blue Economy Data and Tools. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2022. Blue Tourism in Islands and Small Tourism-Dependent Coastal States: Tools & Recovery Strategies. Washington, DC: Global World Bank. World Bank. 2022. Gender Integration in the Blue Economy Portfolio: Review of Experiences and Future Opportunities. Washington, DC: Global World Bank. (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    109 110 Making Waves  Appendix C Level Source World Bank. 2022. Marine Spatial Planning for a Resilient and Inclusive Blue Economy: Volume 1: Key Considerations to Formulate and Global Implement Marine Spatial Planning. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2022. Marine Spatial Planning for a Resilient and Inclusive Blue Economy: Volume 2: Integrating Cross-Cutting Themes into Global Marine Spatial Planning. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank and United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2017. The Potential of the Blue Economy: Increasing Global Long-Term Benefits of the Sustainable Use of Marine Resources for Small Island Developing States and Coastal Least Developed Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank Group. 2016. Blue Economy Development Framework: Growing the Blue Economy to Combat Poverty and Accelerate Global Prosperity. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. World Bank Group. 2023. Unlocking Blue Carbon Development: Investment Readiness Framework for Governments. Washington, DC: Global World Bank Group. Diez, Sylvia Michele, Pawan Patil, John Morton, Diego J. Rodriguez, Alessandra Vanzella, David Robin, Thomas Maes, and Christopher Regional Corbin. 2019. Marine Pollution in the Caribbean: Not a Minute to Waste. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Heger, Martin Philipp, Lukas Vashold, Anabella Palacios, Mala Alahmadi, Marjory-Anne Bromhead, and Marcelo Acerbi. 2022. Blue Regional Skies, Blue Seas: Air Pollution, Marine Plastics, and Coastal Erosion in the Middle East and North Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank. Regional Lovei, Magda. 2017. The World Bank and the Blue Economy in Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank. Patil, Pawan G., John Virdin, Sylvia Michele Diez, Julian Roberts, and Asha Singh. 2016. “Toward A Blue Economy: A Promise for Regional Sustainable Growth in the Caribbean.” Overview, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. 2019. “Capturing Opportunities for Integrated Coastal Zone Management and the Blue Economy in MENA.” MENA Regional Knowledge and Learning Quick Notes Series 172, World Bank, Washington, DC. Regional World Bank. 2022. “Blue Economy for Resilient Africa Program.” Overview, World Bank, Washington, DC. (continued) Level Source Regional World Bank. 2023. A Blue Transformation for Pacific Maritime Transport: Overarching Regional Report. Washington, DC: World Bank. Regional World Bank Group. 2022. “Blue Solutions for Africa: Key Messages.” Operational Brief, World Bank Group, Washington, DC. Patil, Pawan G., John Virdin, Charles S. Colgan, M. G. Hussain, Pierre Failler, and Tibor Vegh. 2018. Toward a Blue Economy: A Pathway Country for Sustainable Growth in Bangladesh. Washington, DC: World Bank. Country World Bank. 2016. Grenada: Blue Growth Coastal Master Plan. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2019. Communities Livelihoods Fisheries: Governance, Growth & the Blue Economy in Mozambique. Washington, DC: World Country Bank. World Bank. 2019. “São Tomé and Príncipe—Country Economic Memorandum: Blue Economy and Environmental Resiliency.” Country Background Note 15, World Bank, Washington, DC. Country World Bank. 2020. “Blue Economy: A Path for Krasnodar Krai.” Policy Note, World Bank, Washington, DC. Country World Bank. 2020. “Bulgaria: Toward a Blue Economy Development.” Policy Brief, World Bank, Washington, DC. Country World Bank. 2020. Bulgaria: Toward Blue Economy Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. Country World Bank. 2020. Realizing the Blue Economy Potential in Albania. Washington, DC: World Bank. Country World Bank. 2021. Financing Mechanisms for Sustainable Blue Economy Development in Mozambique. Washington, DC: World Bank. Country World Bank. 2021. Oceans for Prosperity: Reforms for a Blue Economy in Indonesia. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2021. Pakistan—Blue Carbon Rapid Assessment: Policy Recommendations for the Revision of Nationally Determined Country Contribution. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2022. “Bangladesh—Country Climate and Development Report: Environment, Natural Resources & Blue Economy.” Country Background Note, World Bank, Washington, DC. (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    111 112 Making Waves  Appendix C Level Source World Bank. 2022. “The Blue Economy in Tunisia: Opportunity for an Integrated and Sustainable Development of the Sea and Coastal Country Areas.” Executive Summary, Washington, DC: World Bank. Country World Bank. 2023. Building a Blue Economy Roadmap for Cambodia. Washington, DC: World Bank. Country World Bank. 2023. Financing Options for a Blue Economy for Jamaica. Washington, DC: World Bank. Country World Bank. 2023. Recommendations for a Blue Economy Roadmap for Jamaica. Washington, DC: World Bank. Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: MENA = Middle East and North Africa. ntegrated Coastal Zone Management and Marine Spatial Planning Table C.2. I Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Urban, Disaster Risk Msimbazi Basin Development Lending P169425 2023 Active Tanzania AFE Management, Resilience, Project product and Land Marine Fisheries and Environment, Natural Lending P163980 Socio-Economic Development 2020 Active Kenya AFE Resources, and product Project Blue Economy São Tomé e Príncipe Transport Lending São Tomé P161842 Sector Development and 2019 Active AFE Transport product and Príncipe Coastal Protection Project Environment, Natural West Africa Coastal Areas Lending Western and P162337 2018 Active AFW Resources, and Resilience Investment Project product Central Africa Blue Economy Third South West Indian Eastern and Environment, Natural Ocean Fisheries Governance Lending P155642 2018 Active Southern AFE Resources, and and Shared Growth Project product Africa Blue Economy (SWIOFish3) Environment, Natural Caribbean Regional Oceanscape Lending OECS P159653 2018 Closed LAC Resources, and Project product countries Blue Economy (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    113 114 Making Waves  Appendix C Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Forest Sector Modernization Environment, Natural Lending P157127 and Coastal Resilience 2017 Closed Viet Nam EAP Resources, and product Enhancement Project Blue Economy Environment, Natural Morocco Inclusive Green Lending P149747 2016 Closed Morocco MENA Resources, and Growth DPL2 product Blue Economy Environment, Natural Climate Change and Green Lending P155824 2016 Closed Viet Nam EAP Resources, and Growth in Vietnam product Blue Economy Environment, Natural BZ Marine Conservation and Lending P131408 2015 Closed Belize LAC Resources, and Climate Adaptation product Blue Economy AFCC2/RI-South West Indian Eastern and Environment, Natural Lending P132123 Ocean Fisheries Governance 2015 Closed Southern AFE Resources, and product and Shared Growth Project 1 Africa Blue Economy Environment, Natural Lending P127956 MA-Inclusive Green Growth DPL 2014 Closed Morocco MENA Resources, and product Blue Economy Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Environment, Natural Lending P127813 Management Program—Coral 2014 Closed Indonesia EAP Resources, and product Triangle Initiative Blue Economy (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Environment, Natural Integrated Coastal Zone Lending P121271 2013 Closed Morocco MENA Resources, and Management product Blue Economy Coastal Embankment Urban, Disaster Risk Lending South P128276 Improvement Project—Phase I 2013 Closed Bangladesh Management, Resilience, product Asia (CEIP-I) and Land Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Urban, Disaster Risk Lending South P143382 Coastal Disaster Risk 2013 Closed India Management, Resilience, product Asia Reduction Project and Land Environment, Natural Integrated Coastal Lending South P097985 2010 Closed India Resources, and Zone Management product Asia Blue Economy Harnessing the Potential of Environment, Natural P179640 the Ocean for Sustainable 2025 Active AAA product Ecuador LAC Resources, and Development in Ecuador Blue Economy Tanzania-Zanzibar PROBLUE— Supporting Blue Economy Policy Environment, Natural P176401 Implementation through Marine 2024 Active AAA product Tanzania AFE Resources, and Debris Control and Coastal Blue Economy Zone Management Enhancing Environmental Environment, Natural P167307 Sustainability and Resilience 2022 Closed AAA product Viet Nam EAP Resources, and in Vietnam Blue Economy (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    115 116 Making Waves  Appendix C Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Environment, Natural Improving the Understanding P175097 2022 Closed AAA product World Other Resources, and of Marine Spatial Planning Blue Economy Integrated Coastal Zone Environment, Natural Management and Hydrocarbon Standard P169124 2021 Closed Morocco MENA Resources, and Blue Marine Pollution Prevention and product Economy Control (ICZM/HMPPC) Environment, Natural São Tomé and Príncipe Int. São Tomé P162491 2018 Closed AAA product AFE Resources, and Blue Coastal Planning and Príncipe Economy Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: AAA = analytic and advisory activities; AFE = Eastern and Southern Africa; AFW = Western and Central Africa; BZ = Belize; DPL = development policy loan; EAP = East Asia and Pacific; FY = fiscal year; Int. = integrated; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; MA = Morocco; MENA = Middle East and North Africa; OECS = Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States.  mall-Scale Fisheries Table C.3. S Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Forum Fisheries Agency: Pacific Environment, Natural Islands Regional Oceanscape Lending Pacific P177661 2023 Active EAP Resources, and Program—Second Phase for product Islands Blue Economy Economic Resilience Oceans for Prosperity Environment, Natural Lending P173391 Project—LAUTRA 2023 Active Indonesia EAP Resources, and product Blue Economy Environment, Natural Philippine Fisheries and Coastal Lending P174137 2023 Active Philippines EAP Resources, and Resiliency Project product Blue Economy Environment, Natural Senegal: Natural Resources Lending P175915 2023 Active Senegal AFW Resources, and Management Project product Blue Economy Pacific Islands Regional Environment, Natural Lending Marshall P178544 Oceanscape Program—Second 2023 Active EAP Resources, and product Islands Phase for Economic Resilience Blue Economy Transforming Fisheries Sector Management in South-West Environment, Natural Lending South P179242 Indian Ocean Region and 2023 Active South Asia Resources, and product Asia Maldives Project (TransFORM, Blue Economy SWIOFish5) (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    117 118 Making Waves  Appendix C Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Accelerating Blue Economy Environment, Natural Lending P179612 Development in the Kingdom 2023 Active Morocco MENA Resources, and product of Morocco Blue Economy Environment, Natural Unleashing the Blue Economy Lending OECS P171833 2022 Active LAC Resources, and of the Caribbean (UBEC) product countries Blue Economy Environment, Natural Liberia Sustainable Management Lending P172012 2022 Active Liberia AFW Resources, and of Fisheries Project product Blue Economy Environment, Natural Blue Economy Lending P172926 2022 Active Morocco MENA Resources, and Program-for-Results product Blue Economy Environment, Natural Fisheries Sector COVID-19 Lending South P174798 2022 Active India Resources, and Recovery Project product Asia Blue Economy Resilient Tourism and Blue Lending Finance, Competitiveness, P176981 Economy Development in Cabo 2022 Active Cabo Verde AFW product and Innovation Verde Project The Solomon Islands: Pacific Environment, Natural Islands Regional Oceanscape Lending Solomon P177239 2022 Active EAP Resources, and Program—Second Phase for product Islands Blue Economy Economic Resilience (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Program on Sustainable Fishery Middle East Environment, Natural Lending P178143 Development in Red Sea and 2022 Active and North MENA Resources, and product Gulf of Aden (SFISH) Africa Blue Economy Environment, Natural Northern Mozambique Rural Lending P174635 2021 Active Mozambique AFE Resources, and Resilience Project product Blue Economy Marine Fisheries and Environment, Natural Lending P163980 Socio-Economic Development 2020 Active Kenya AFE Resources, and product Project Blue Economy Environment, Natural Kiribati: Pacific Islands Regional Lending P165821 2020 Active Kiribati EAP Resources, and Oceanscape Program product Blue Economy Environment, Natural Costa Rica Sustainable Fisheries Lending P168475 2020 Active Costa Rica LAC Resources, and Development Project product Blue Economy Caribbean Ocean and Environment, Natural Lending P171321 Aquaculture Sustainability 2020 Closed Caribbean LAC Resources, and product Facility Project Blue Economy Environment, Natural Bangladesh Sustainable Coastal Lending South P161568 2019 Active Bangladesh Resources, and and Marine Fisheries product Asia Blue Economy (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    119 120 Making Waves  Appendix C Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Environment, Natural Tonga: Pathway to Sustainable Lending P164941 2019 Active Tonga EAP Resources, and Oceans product Blue Economy Third South West Indian Eastern and Environment, Natural Ocean Fisheries Governance Lending P155642 2018 Active Southern AFE Resources, and and Shared Growth Project product Africa Blue Economy (SWIOFish3) Fourth Economic Reform Lending Macroeconomics, Trade, P161794 2018 Closed Kiribati EAP Development Policy Operation product and Investment Promoting Community-Based Environment, Natural Lending P164257 Climate Resilience in the 2018 Active Jamaica LAC Resources, and product Fisheries Sector Blue Economy Second South West Indian Environment, Natural Ocean Fisheries Governance Lending Southern P153370 2017 Closed AFE Resources, and and Shared Growth product Africa Blue Economy Project—Madagascar Third Economic Reform Lending Macroeconomics, Trade, and P155540 2017 Closed Kiribati EAP Development Policy Operation product Investment Environment, Natural National Program for Innovation Lending P155902 2017 Closed Peru LAC Resources, and in Fisheries and Aquaculture product Blue Economy (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice West Africa Region Fisheries Environment, Natural Lending Western and P156759 Program AF Guinea, Sierra 2017 Closed AFW Resources, and product Central Africa Leone, and Liberia Blue Economy Sustainable Fisheries Resources Development Project (Fourth Environment, Natural Lending South P157801 South West Indian Ocean 2017 Closed Maldives Resources, and Blue product Asia Fisheries Governance and Economy Shared Growth Project) Environment, Natural West Africa Regional Fisheries Lending P159912 2017 Closed Liberia AFW Resources, and Program in Liberia—ACGF product Blue Economy Mindanao Inclusive Agriculture Lending P173866 2023 Active Philippines EAP Agriculture and Food Development Project product Second Additional Financing for Lending P169025 Philippine Rural Development 2021 Active Philippines EAP Agriculture and Food product Project Samoa Agriculture & Fisheries Lending P165873 Productivity and Marketing 2020 Active Samoa EAP Agriculture and Food product Project (SAFPROM) Philippine Rural Development Lending P161944 2018 Active Philippines EAP Agriculture and Food Project Additional Financing product (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    121 122 Making Waves  Appendix C Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Montenegro Second Institutional Lending P164424 Development and Agriculture 2018 Active Montenegro ECA Agriculture and Food product Strengthening Project Indus Eco Region Community Lending South P146252 2017 Closed Pakistan Agriculture and Food Livelihood Project (IECLP) product Asia Kenya Climate Smart Agriculture Lending P154784 2017 Closed Kenya AFE Agriculture and Food Project product OECS Regional Agriculture Lending OECS P158958 2017 Closed LAC Agriculture and Food Competitiveness Project product countries DJ—Second Additional Financing for the Rural Lending P157282 Community Development and 2016 Closed Djibouti MENA Agriculture and Food product Water Mobilization Project (PRODERMO) Blue Social Protection: Connecting Social Protection P174353 2026 Active AAA product World Other Social Protection and Jobs and the Blue Economy in a Changing Climate Environment, Natural Pacific P171214 Pacific Ocean Advisory Program 2025 Active AAA product EAP Resources, and Islands Blue Economy (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Supporting Plastics Circularity Environment, Natural and Blue Economy in the Southeast P176923 2025 Active AAA product EAP Resources, and Philippines, Thailand, and Asia Blue Economy Malaysia Effect of Fuel Subsidies on P180366 Chinese Distant Water Fishing 2025 Active AAA product World Other Other and on Global Fish Populations Environment, Natural Fisheries Sector Assessment P176920 2023 Closed AAA product World Other Resources, and Toolkit Rollout Blue Economy Implementation of Nutrition P165298 Sensitive Interventions in 2022 Closed AAA product World Other Water Operations Enhancing Environmental Environment, Natural P167307 Sustainability and Resilience in 2022 Closed AAA product Viet Nam EAP Resources, and Vietnam Blue Economy Reducing Disease Risk in P171307 Aquaculture by Investing in 2022 Closed AAA product World Other Agriculture and Food Health Management Environment, Natural Accelerating Climate Investment P171993 2022 Closed AAA product Philippines EAP Resources, and in the Philippines Blue Economy (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    123 124 Making Waves  Appendix C Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Environmentally Harmful P175345 2022 Closed AAA product World Other Other Subsidies Environment, Natural Fisheries Sector Assessment Standard P170735 2021 Closed World Other Resources, and Toolkit product Blue Economy Priorities for Sustainably Environment, Natural Managing Sri Lanka’s Coastal South P171747 2021 Closed AAA product Sri Lanka Resources, and Fisheries and the Ecosystems Asia Blue Economy That Support Them Myanmar: Supporting Policies and Strengthening Capacities Environment, Natural P172379 for Blue Economy Development, 2021 Closed AAA product Myanmar EAP Resources, and Plastics Reduction, and Climate Blue Economy Mainstreaming Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: AAA = analytic and advisory activities; ACGF = Africa Catalytic Growth Fund; AF = additional financing; AFE = Eastern and Southern Africa; AFW = Western and Central Africa; DJ = Djibouti; EAP = East Asia and Pacific; ECA = Europe and Central Asia; FY = fiscal year; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; MENA = Middle East and North Africa; OECS = Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States.  lastics and Marine Pollution Table C.4. P Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Philippines—Sustainable Urban, Disaster Risk Lending P171556 Inclusive and Resilient Tourism 2024 Pipeline Philippines EAP Management, Resilience, product Project and Land Environment, Natural Clean and Resilient Environment Lending P176163 2024 Active Albania ECA Resources, and Blue for Blue Sea Project product Economy Gulf of Fonseca Transboundary Environment, Natural Lending Central P176323 Management of Coastal Natural 2024 Pipeline LAC Resources, and Blue product America Resources Economy Urban, Disaster Risk Dar es Salaam Metropolitan Lending P180298 2024 Active Tanzania AFE Management, Resilience, Development Project Phase 2 product and Land Urban, Disaster Risk Msimbazi Basin Development Lending P169425 2023 Active Tanzania AFE Management, Resilience, Project product and Land Cambodia: Solid Waste Environment, Natural Lending P170976 and Plastic Management 2023 Active Cambodia EAP Resources, and Blue product Improvement Project Economy Bangladesh Environmental Environment, Natural Lending South P172817 Sustainability and Transformation 2023 Active Bangladesh Resources, and product Asia Project Blue Economy (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    125 126 Making Waves  Appendix C Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice First Resilience and Green Lending Macroeconomics, Trade, P178202 2023 Active Albania ECA Development—DPL product and Investment Philippines First Sustainable Lending Macroeconomics, Trade, P178634 2023 Active Philippines EAP Recovery DPL product and Investment Environment, Natural Barbados Green and Resilient Lending P179112 2023 Active Barbados LAC Resources, and Recovery DPL product Blue Economy Environment, Natural Unleashing the Blue Economy Lending OECS coun- P171833 2022 Active LAC Resources, and of the Caribbean (UBEC) product tries Blue Economy Environment, Natural Liberia Sustainable Management Lending P172012 2022 Active Liberia AFW Resources, and of Fisheries Project product Blue Economy The Second Solomon Islands Lending Solomon Macroeconomics, Trade, P172454 Transition to Sustainable Growth 2022 Closed EAP product Islands and Investment Development Policy Operation Environment, Natural Blue Economy Lending P172926 2022 Active Morocco MENA Resources, and Program-for-Results product Blue Economy Southeast Asia Regional Environment, Natural Lending Southeast P175659 Program on Combating Marine 2022 Active EAP Resources, and product Asia Plastics (SEA-MaP) Blue Economy (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice The Solomon Islands FY22 Lending Solomon Macroeconomics, Trade, P178608 Supplemental Development 2022 Closed EAP product Islands and Investment Policy Operation China Food Safety Improvement Lending P162178 2021 Active China EAP Agriculture and Food Project product Sierra Leone Economic Lending Finance, Competitiveness, P164212 2021 Active Sierra Leone AFW Diversification Project product and Innovation Urban, Disaster Risk Resilient Urban Sierra Lending P168608 2021 Active Sierra Leone AFW Management, Resilience, Leone Project product and Land Urban, Disaster Risk Kerala Solid Waste Management Lending South P168633 2021 Active India Management, Resilience, Project product Asia and Land Environment, Natural Lending South P170798 Forests for Prosperity Project 2021 Active Nepal Resources, and product Asia Blue Economy Urban, Disaster Risk Maputo Urban Transformation Lending P171449 2021 Active Mozambique AFE Management, Resilience, Project product and Land Greater Cairo Air Pollution Environment, Natural Lending Egypt, Arab P172548 Management and Climate 2021 Active MENA Resources, and product Rep. Change Project Blue Economy (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    127 128 Making Waves  Appendix C Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Urban, Disaster Risk China Plastic Waste Reduction Lending P174267 2021 Active China EAP Management, Resilience, Project product and Land Improvement of Solid Waste Environment, Natural Lending P157245 Management to Support 2020 Active Indonesia EAP Resources, and product Regional and Metropolitan Cities Blue Economy Urban, Disaster Risk Senegal Municipal Solid Waste Lending P161477 2020 Active Senegal AFW Management, Resilience, Management Project product and Land Marine Fisheries and Environment, Natural Lending P163980 Socio-Economic Development 2020 Active Kenya AFE Resources, and product Project Blue Economy Grenada Second Fiscal Lending Macroeconomics, Trade, P167748 Resilience and Blue Growth 2020 Closed Grenada LAC product and Investment Development Policy Credit Bangladesh Second Lending South P168724 Programmatic Jobs 2020 Closed Bangladesh Social Protection and Jobs product Asia Development Policy Credit Urban, Disaster Risk Cap Haitien Urban Development Lending P168951 2020 Active Haiti LAC Management, Resilience, Project product and Land (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Second Fiscal Reform and St. Vincent Environment, Natural Lending P169956 Resilience Development Policy 2020 Closed and the LAC Resources, and product Credit with a CAT DDO Grenadines Blue Economy Tuvalu First Resilience Development Policy Operation Lending Macroeconomics, Trade, P170558 2020 Closed Tuvalu EAP with a Catastrophe-Deferred product and Investment Drawdown Option Environment, Natural Plastic-Free Rivers and Seas Lending South P171269 2020 Active South Asia Resources, and for South Asia product Asia Blue Economy Integrated Forest Landscape Environment, Natural Lending P163023 Management Project in Atalaya, 2019 Active Peru LAC Resources, and product Ucayali Blue Economy Maldives: Enhancing Lending South P163818 Employability and Resilience 2019 Active Maldives Education product Asia of Youth Project Urban, Disaster Risk Greater Accra Resilient and Lending P164330 2019 Active Ghana AFW Management, Resilience, Integrated Development Project product and Land Integrated Urban Development Urban, Disaster Risk Lending P159756 and Resilience Project for 2018 Active Madagascar AFE Management, Resilience, product Greater Antananarivo and Land (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    129 130 Making Waves  Appendix C Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Grenada First Fiscal Resilience Lending Macroeconomics, Trade, P164289 and Blue Growth Development 2018 Closed Grenada LAC product and Investment Policy Credit Fiscal Sustainability and Climate Lending Macroeconomics, Trade, P165276 2018 Closed Fiji EAP Resilience DPO product and Investment Second South West Indian Environment, Natural Ocean Fisheries Governance Lending Southern P153370 2017 Closed AFE Resources, and and Shared Growth product Africa Blue Economy Project—Madagascar Colombia Fiscal and Growth Lending Macroeconomics, Trade, P158739 2017 Closed Colombia LAC DPL 1 product and Investment Environment, Natural Maldives Clean Environment Lending South P160739 2017 Active Maldives Resources, and Project product Asia Blue Economy Urban, Disaster Risk Jamaica Disaster Vulnerability Lending P146965 2016 Active Jamaica LAC Management, Resilience, Reduction Project product and Land AFCC2/RI-South West Indian Eastern and Environment, Natural Lending P132123 Ocean Fisheries Governance 2015 Closed Southern AFE Resources, and product and Shared Growth Project 1 Africa Blue Economy Jordan Ozone Depleting Environment, Natural Lending P127702 Substances HCFC Phase-Out 2013 Active Jordan MENA Resources, and product Project (ODS3) Blue Economy (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Urban, Disaster Risk Lending P127955 Solid Waste Sector DPL3 2013 Closed Morocco MENA Management, Resilience, product and Land Urban, Disaster Risk Solid Waste Management OBA Lending West Bank P132268 2013 Closed MENA Management, Resilience, Pilot in West Bank product and Gaza and Land Second Kerala Rural Water Lending South P121774 Supply and Sanitation Project 2012 Closed India Water product Asia (Jalanidhi II) Environment, Natural West Africa Coastal Areas P166218 2026 Active AAA product Africa Africa Resources, and High-Level Platform Blue Economy Sustainable Management Environment, Natural of Indonesia’s Oceans and P166466 2026 Active AAA product Indonesia EAP Resources, and Coastal Resources, and Blue Economy Reducing Marine Debris Waves of Change: Tackling Environment, Natural East Asia and P177225 Regional Marine Plastics 2026 Active AAA product EAP Resources, and Pacific Pollution in EAP Blue Economy Environment, Natural Pacific P171214 Pacific Ocean Advisory Program 2025 Active AAA product EAP Resources, and Islands Blue Economy (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    131 132 Making Waves  Appendix C Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Supporting Plastics Circularity Environment, Natural and Blue Economy in the Southeast P176923 2025 Active AAA product EAP Resources, and Philippines, Thailand, and Asia Blue Economy Malaysia Environment, Natural BBSEA: Turning the Tide of Europe and P173334 2025 Active AAA product ECA Resources, and Pollution in the Black Sea Central Asia Blue Economy Urban, Disaster Risk P173517 Urban MDTF for South Africa 2025 Active AAA product South Africa AFE Management, Resilience, and Land Rebuilding Tourism Finance, Competitiveness, P174821 Competitiveness: From Crisis to 2025 Active AAA product World Other and Innovation Sustainability Environment, Natural Pacific P178341 Pacific Marine Plastic Action Plan 2025 Draft AAA product EAP Resources, and Islands Blue Economy Landscape and Airshed Environment, Natural South P178721 Management for Resource 2025 Active AAA product India Resources, and Asia Efficient and Resilient Growth Blue Economy Environment, Natural Timor-Leste Blue Economy P178790 2025 Active AAA product Timor-Leste EAP Resources, and Development ASA Blue Economy (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice ASA on Urban, Land, and Urban, Disaster Risk P178968 Resilience Multi-Sectoral 2025 Active AAA product Viet Nam EAP Management, Resilience, Coordination in Vietnam and Land Environment, Natural South Africa: Climate Change P179101 2025 Active AAA product South Africa AFE Resources, and Support Programmatic ASA Blue Economy Programmatic ASA for Lebanon Environment, Natural P179435 Waste Sector Reform and River 2025 Active AAA product Lebanon MENA Resources, and Basins Depollution Blue Economy Environment, Natural Curbing the Flow: Moving to P180273 2025 Active AAA product World Other Resources, and Global Plastics Action Blue Economy Environment, Natural North Africa Blue Economy and P180756 2025 Active AAA product Maghreb MENA Resources, and Coastal Management—Phase II Blue Economy Sustainable and Inclusive Finance, Competitiveness, P180808 Competitiveness and Finance 2025 Active AAA product Ecuador LAC and Innovation Ecuador The Gambia Integrated Urban, Urban, Disaster Risk P172822 Coastal Resilience, and Land 2024 Active AAA product Gambia, The AFW Management, Resilience, Program and Land (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    133 134 Making Waves  Appendix C Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice KH Enhancing Natural Resource Environment, Natural P175520 and Pollution Management in 2024 Active AAA product Cambodia EAP Resources, and Cambodia Blue Economy Country Environmental Analysis Environment, Natural South P175908 for Building Back a Greener 2024 Active AAA product Bangladesh Resources, and Asia Bangladesh Blue Economy Tanzania-Zanzibar PROBLUE—Supporting Blue Environment, Natural P176401 Economy Policy Implementation 2024 Active AAA product Tanzania AFE Resources, and through Marine Debris Control Blue Economy and Coastal Zone Management Environment, Natural Green Clean Pakistan South P176567 2024 Active AAA product Pakistan Resources, and Programmatic ASA Asia Blue Economy Urban, Disaster Risk P177344 Sustainable Waste Management 2024 Active AAA product World Other Management, Resilience, and Land Towards a Sustainable and Environment, Natural South P178489 Resilient Blue Economy in the 2024 Active AAA product Maldives Resources, and Asia Maldives Blue Economy Environment, Natural China: Supporting Marine Plastic P170079 2023 Closed AAA product China EAP Resources, and Debris Solutions Blue Economy (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Middle East Environment, Natural North Africa Blue Economy and P170596 2023 Closed AAA product and North MENA Resources, and Coastal Management Africa Blue Economy Enabling Circular Economy to Environment, Natural P171363 Address Plastic Pollution in 2023 Draft AAA product World Other Resources, and Oceans Blue Economy Regional Initiative on Solid Urban, Disaster Risk Waste Management and Marine Central P174701 2023 Closed AAA product LAC Management, Resilience, Environment Protection—Central America and Land America PASA on Urban, Land, and Urban, Disaster Risk P175981 Resilience Multisectoral 2023 Closed AAA product Viet Nam EAP Management, Resilience, Coordination in Vietnam and Land Reducing Marine Plastic Environment, Natural Pollution and Creating Plastic P176178 2023 Closed AAA product Nigeria AFW Resources, and Recycling Market in Lagos State, Blue Economy Nigeria Environment, Natural Climate Cost of Standard P178756 2023 Closed World Other Resources, and Plastics—Approach Paper product Blue Economy Environment, Natural Dissemination of Pathways out P179013 2023 Closed AAA product World Other Resources, and of Plastic Pollution ASA Blue Economy (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    135 136 Making Waves  Appendix C Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Leveraging the Circular Environment, Natural Economy to Reduce Industrial South P168024 2022 Closed AAA product Bangladesh Resources, and and Marine Pollution in Asia Blue Economy Bangladesh Environment, Natural Addressing Marine Plastics P169132 2022 Closed AAA product Indonesia EAP Resources, and Debris in Indonesia Blue Economy Environment, Natural P170869 Pathways out of Plastic Pollution 2022 Closed AAA product World Other Resources, and Blue Economy Resilient Green Growth Environment, Natural P171011 Programmatic Analytical and 2022 Closed AAA product Lao PDR EAP Resources, and Advisory Services Blue Economy Enhancing Environmental Environment, Natural P167307 Sustainability and Resilience in 2022 Closed AAA product Viet Nam EAP Resources, and Vietnam Blue Economy Regional Initiative on Solid Urban, Disaster Risk Waste Management and P174467 2022 Closed AAA product Caribbean LAC Management, Resilience, Marine Environment and Land Protection—Caribbean Region Rethinking Plastics: Support Environment, Natural Southeast P170994 for ASEAN Region and Select 2021 Closed AAA product EAP Resources, and Asia Countries on Marine Plastics Blue Economy (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Urban, Disaster Risk Bridging the Institutional Gap in P171405 2021 Closed AAA product World Other Management, Resilience, SWM and Land Coastal Blue Economy Environment, Natural P172461 Development Path and Updated 2021 Closed AAA product Cambodia EAP Resources, and Blue NDC for Cambodia Economy Myanmar: Supporting Policies and Strengthening Capacities Environment, Natural P172379 for Blue Economy Development, 2021 Closed AAA product Myanmar EAP Resources, and Blue Plastics Reduction, and Climate Economy Mainstreaming Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: AAA = analytic and advisory activities; AFE = Eastern and Southern Africa; AFW = Western and Central Africa; ASA = advisory services and analytics; ASEAN = Association of Southeast Asian Nations; BBSEA = Blueing the Black Sea; CAT DDO = catastrophe-deferred drawdown option; DPL = development policy loan; DPO = development policy operation; EAP = East Asia and Pacific; ECA = Europe and Central Asia; FY = fiscal year; HCFC = hydrochlorofluorocarbon; KH = Cambodia; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; MDTF = multidonor trust fund; MENA = Middle East and North Africa; NDC = nationally determined commitment; OBA = output-based aid; OECS = Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States; PASA = Programmatic Advisory Services and Analytics; PDR = People’s Democratic Republic; SWM = solid waste management. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    137 138 Making Waves  Appendix C  arine and Coastal Tourism Table C.5. M Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Resilient Tourism and Blue Lending Finance, Competitiveness, P176981 Economy Development in Cabo 2022 Active Cabo Verde AFW product and Innovation Verde Project Tourism Diversification and Lending Finance, Competitiveness, P177179 2022 Active Gambia, The AFW Resilience in The Gambia product and Innovation Sierra Leone Economic Lending Finance, Competitiveness, P164212 2021 Active Sierra Leone AFW Diversification Project product and Innovation Economic Transformation for Lending Finance, Competitiveness, P174684 2021 Active Madagascar AFE Inclusive Growth Project product and Innovation Competitiveness and Sector Lending Finance, Competitiveness, P166187 2020 Active Suriname LAC Diversification product and Innovation Lending Finance, Competitiveness, P164211 Tourism Development Project 2019 Active Ghana AFW product and Innovation Madagascar Integrated Growth Lending Finance, Competitiveness, P164536 2019 Closed Madagascar AFE Poles and Corridor SOP-2 product and Innovation Integrated Development and Lending Finance, Competitiveness, P164584 2019 Active Comoros AFE Competitiveness Project product and Innovation (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Integrated Infrastructure Development for National Lending Finance, Competitiveness, P157599 Tourism Strategic Areas 2018 Active Indonesia EAP product and Innovation (Indonesia Tourism Development Project) Support to Enterprise Lending Finance, Competitiveness, P161590 Development and 2018 Closed Congo, Rep. AFW product and Innovation Competitiveness Project Senegal Tourism and Enterprise Lending Finance, Competitiveness, P146469 2017 Closed Senegal AFW Development Project product and Innovation OECS Regional Tourism Lending OECS coun- Finance, Competitiveness, P152117 2017 Active LAC Competitiveness product tries and Innovation Competitiveness for Tourism Lending Finance, Competitiveness, P146666 2016 Closed Cabo Verde AFW Development product and Innovation Benin Cross Border Tourism and Lending Finance, Competitiveness, P149117 2016 Active Benin AFW Competitiveness Project product and Innovation Rebuilding Tourism Finance, Competitiveness, P174821 Competitiveness: From Crisis to 2025 Active AAA product World Other and Innovation Sustainability Future of Tourism in the Finance, Competitiveness, P179920 2025 Active AAA product Caribbean LAC Caribbean and Innovation (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    139 140 Making Waves  Appendix C Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Support to Finance, Finance, Competitiveness, P177357 Competitiveness, and Trade in 2023 Closed AAA product Timor-Leste EAP and Innovation Timor-Leste Papua New The Future of Pacific Tourism Guinea Finance, Competitiveness, P177593 2023 Closed AAA product EAP Post-COVID and Pacific and Innovation Islands Timor-Leste: Private Sector Finance, Competitiveness, P171960 Development and Tourism 2021 Closed AAA product Timor-Leste EAP and Innovation Development World Bank Group Sustainable Standard Finance, Competitiveness, P154217 2020 Closed World Other Tourism Global Solutions Group product and Innovation PK: Punjab Cultural and Heritage South Finance, Competitiveness, P157800 2020 Closed AAA product Pakistan Tourism Promotion Asia and Innovation Improving Tourism Pacific Finance, Competitiveness, P161606 Competitiveness for a Pacific 2020 Closed AAA product EAP Islands and Innovation Possible TZ-Zanzibar Tourism Integrated Finance, Competitiveness, P165069 2020 Closed AAA product Tanzania AFE Strategy Action Plan (TISAP) and Innovation Creating Markets in the Digital Economy: Knowledge Finance, Competitiveness, P168669 2020 Closed AAA product World Other Generation and Capacity and Innovation Building (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Diversifying Tourism and Finance, Competitiveness, P169076 Strengthening Linkages through 2020 Closed AAA product Cabo Verde AFW and Innovation Digital Technologies Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: AAA = analytic and advisory activities; AFE = Eastern and Southern Africa; AFW = Western and Central Africa; EAP = East Asia and Pacific; FY = fiscal year; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; OECS = Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States; PK = Pakistan; SOP = Series of Projects; TZ = Tanzania. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    141 142 Making Waves  Appendix C  aritime Transport Infrastructure Table C.6. M Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Comoros Interisland Lending P173114 2022 Active Comoros AFE Transport Connectivity Project product Tonga Climate Resilient Lending P176208 2022 Active Tonga EAP Transport Transport Project II product Kiribati Outer Islands Transport Lending P165838 2020 Active Kiribati EAP Transport Infrastructure Investment Project product The Marshall Islands Maritime Lending Marshall P161382 2019 Active EAP Transport Investment Project product Islands Federated States of Micronesia Lending Micronesia, P163922 2019 Active EAP Transport Maritime Investment Project product Fed. Sts. Enhancing Waterway Connectivity and Water Lending P156880 2018 Active Colombia LAC Transport Service Provision in Colombia’s product Plan Pazcifico Greater Abidjan Port—City Lending P159697 2018 Active Côte d’Ivoire AFW Transport Integration Project product Capacity Augmentation of the Lending South P148775 National Waterway—1 (Jal Marg 2017 Active India Transport product Asia Vikas) Project Dar es Salaam Maritime Lending P150496 2017 Active Tanzania AFE Transport Gateway Project product (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Trade and Logistics Services Lending Finance, Competitiveness, P158982 2017 Closed Togo AFW Competitiveness Project product and Innovation Tonga Transport Lending P151806 Sector Consolidation 2016 Closed Tonga EAP Transport product Project—Additional Financing Somali Core Economic Lending Finance, Competitiveness, P152241 Institutions and Opportunities 2016 Closed Somalia AFE product and Innovation Program (SCORE) Somalia Towage Services in Lending P152379 2016 Closed Somalia AFE Other Berbera Port product Bangladesh Regional Waterway Lending South P154511 2016 Active Bangladesh Transport Transport Project 1 product Asia Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: AFE = Eastern and Southern Africa; AFW = Western and Central Africa; EAP = East Asia and Pacific; FY = fiscal year; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    143 144 Making Waves  Appendix C Table C.7.  PROBLUE Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Environment, Natural Lending P180227 Palau Blue Prosperity 2025 Pipeline Palau EAP Resources, and Blue product Economy Philippines—Sustainable Urban, Disaster Risk Lending P171556 Inclusive and Resilient Tourism 2024 Pipeline Philippines EAP Management, Resilience, product Project and Land Environment, Natural Clean and Resilient Environment Lending P176163 2024 Active Albania ECA Resources, and Blue for Blue Sea Project product Economy Gulf of Fonseca Transboundary Environment, Natural Lending Central P176323 Management of Coastal Natural 2024 Pipeline LAC Resources, and Blue product America Resources Economy Environment, Natural Somali Sustainable Fisheries Lending P178032 2024 Pipeline Somalia AFE Resources, and Blue Development Project—Badmaal product Economy Urban, Disaster Risk Dar es Salaam Metropolitan Lending P180298 2024 Active Tanzania AFE Management, Resilience, Development Project Phase 2 product and Land Urban, Disaster Risk Msimbazi Basin Development Lending P169425 2023 Active Tanzania AFE Management, Resilience, Project product and Land (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Cambodia: Solid Waste Environment, Natural Lending P170976 and Plastic Management 2023 Active Cambodia EAP Resources, and product Improvement Project Blue Economy Bangladesh Environmental Environment, Natural Lending South P172817 Sustainability and Transformation 2023 Active Bangladesh Resources, and product Asia Project Blue Economy Environment, Natural Oceans for Prosperity Lending P173391 2023 Active Indonesia EAP Resources, and Project—LAUTRA product Blue Economy Accelerating Blue Economy Environment, Natural Lending P179612 Development in the Kingdom of 2023 Active Morocco MENA Resources, and product Morocco Blue Economy Environment, Natural Unleashing the Blue Economy Lending OECS coun- P171833 2022 Active LAC Resources, and of the Caribbean (UBEC) product tries Blue Economy Environment, Natural Liberia Sustainable Management Lending P172012 2022 Active Liberia AFW Resources, and of Fisheries Project product Blue Economy Environment, Natural Blue Economy Lending P172926 2022 Active Morocco MENA Resources, and Program-for-Results product Blue Economy (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    145 146 Making Waves  Appendix C Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Sustainable Recovery of Environment, Natural Lending P175669 Landscapes and Livelihoods in 2022 Active Argentina LAC Resources, and Blue product Argentina Project Economy Resilient Tourism and Blue Lending Finance, Competitiveness, P176981 Economy Development in Cabo 2022 Active Cabo Verde AFW product and Innovation Verde Project Program on Sustainable Fishery Middle East Environment, Natural Lending P178143 Development in Red Sea and 2022 Active and North MENA Resources, and product Gulf of Aden (SFISH) Africa Blue Economy Sierra Leone Economic Lending Finance, Competitiveness, P164212 2021 Active Sierra Leone AFW Diversification Project product and Innovation Urban, Disaster Risk Resilient Urban Sierra Leone Lending P168608 2021 Active Sierra Leone AFW Management, Resilience, Project product and Land Guinea Natural Resources, Environment, Natural Lending P168613 Mining, and Environmental 2021 Active Guinea AFW Resources, and product Management Project Blue Economy Urban, Disaster Risk Kerala Solid Waste Management Lending South P168633 2021 Active India Management, Resilience, Project product Asia and Land Environment, Natural Lending South P170798 Forests for Prosperity Project 2021 Active Nepal Resources, and product Asia Blue Economy (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Urban, Disaster Risk Maputo Urban Transformation Lending P171449 2021 Active Mozambique AFE Management, Resilience, Project product and Land Greater Cairo Air Pollution Environment, Natural Lending Egypt, Arab P172548 Management and Climate 2021 Active MENA Resources, and product Rep. Change Project Blue Economy Sustainable Rural Economy Lending P174002 2021 Active Mozambique AFE Agriculture and Food Program product Urban, Disaster Risk Senegal Municipal Solid Waste Lending P161477 2020 Active Senegal AFW Management, Resilience, Management Project product and Land Marine Fisheries and Environment, Natural Lending P163980 Socio-Economic Development 2020 Active Kenya AFE Resources, and product Project Blue Economy Environment, Natural Costa Rica Sustainable Fisheries Lending P168475 2020 Active Costa Rica LAC Resources, and Development Project product Blue Economy Urban, Disaster Risk Cap Haitien Urban Development Lending P168951 2020 Active Haiti LAC Management, Resilience, Project product and Land Rail Logistics Improvement Lending P170532 2020 Active Türkiye ECA Transport Project product (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    147 148 Making Waves  Appendix C Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Saint Lucia—Caribbean Regional Lending P170860 Air Transport Connectivity 2020 Active St. Lucia LAC Transport product Project Environment, Natural Plastic-Free Rivers and Seas for Lending South P171269 2020 Active South Asia Resources, and South Asia product Asia Blue Economy Environment, Natural Bangladesh Sustainable Coastal Lending South P161568 2019 Active Bangladesh Resources, and and Marine Fisheries product Asia Blue Economy Integrated Forest Landscape Environment, Natural Lending P163023 Management Project in Atalaya, 2019 Active Peru LAC Resources, and product Ucayali Blue Economy Maldives: Enhancing Lending South P163818 Employability and Resilience of 2019 Active Maldives Education product Asia Youth Project Urban, Disaster Risk Greater Accra Resilient and Lending P164330 2019 Active Ghana AFW Management, Resilience, Integrated Development Project product and Land Third South West Indian Eastern and Environment, Natural Ocean Fisheries Governance Lending P155642 2018 Active Southern AFE Resources, and and Shared Growth Project product Africa Blue Economy (SWIOFish3) (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Integrated Urban Development Urban, Disaster Risk Lending P159756 and Resilience Project for 2018 Active Madagascar AFE Management, Resilience, product Greater Antananarivo and Land Environment, Natural West Africa Coastal Areas Lending Western and P162337 2018 Active AFW Resources, and Resilience Investment Project product Central Africa Blue Economy Senegal—Saint-Louis Urban, Disaster Risk Lending P166538 Emergency Recovery and 2018 Active Senegal AFW Management, Resilience, product Resilience Project and Land Second South West Indian Environment, Natural Ocean Fisheries Governance Lending Southern P153370 2017 Closed AFE Resources, and and Shared Growth product Africa Blue Economy Project—Madagascar Environment, Natural Maldives Clean Environment Lending South P160739 2017 Active Maldives Resources, and Project product Asia Blue Economy Urban, Disaster Risk Jamaica Disaster Vulnerability Lending P146965 2016 Active Jamaica LAC Management, Resilience, Reduction Project product and Land AFCC2/RI-South West Indian Eastern and Environment, Natural Lending P132123 Ocean Fisheries Governance 2015 Closed Southern AFE Resources, and product and Shared Growth Project 1 Africa Blue Economy (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    149 150 Making Waves  Appendix C Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Jordan Ozone Depleting Environment, Natural Lending P127702 Substances HCFC Phase-Out 2013 Active Jordan MENA Resources, and product Project (ODS3) Blue Economy Global Program on Urban, Disaster Risk P176825 Nature-Based Solutions for 2027 Active AAA product World Other Management, Resilience, Climate Resilience and Land Developing Resilient and Sustainable Blue Economy in Environment, Natural P181096 Red Sea Countries (the Arab 2027 Active AAA product MNC03 CMU MENA Resources, and Republic of Egypt, the Republic Blue Economy of Yemen, and Djibouti) Blue Social Protection: Connecting Social Protection P174353 2026 Active AAA product World Other Social Protection and Jobs and the Blue Economy in a Changing Climate Environment, Natural West Africa Coastal Areas P166218 2026 Active AAA product Africa Africa Resources, and High-Level Platform Blue Economy Sustainable Management of Environment, Natural Indonesia’s Oceans and Coastal P166466 2026 Active AAA product Indonesia EAP Resources, and Resources, and Reducing Blue Economy Marine Debris (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Waves of Change: Tackling Environment, Natural East Asia and P177225 Regional Marine Plastics 2026 Active AAA product EAP Resources, and Pacific Pollution in EAP Blue Economy Environment, Natural Aligning Climate Change and P179219 2026 Active AAA product Philippines EAP Resources, and Development in the Philippines Blue Economy Environment, Natural Pacific P171214 Pacific Ocean Advisory Program 2025 Active AAA product EAP Resources, and Islands Blue Economy Supporting Plastics Circularity Environment, Natural and Blue Economy in the Southeast P176923 2025 Active AAA product EAP Resources, and Philippines, Thailand, and Asia Blue Economy Malaysia Effect of Fuel Subsidies on P180366 Chinese Distant Water Fishing 2025 Active AAA product World Other Other and on Global Fish Populations Caribbean Regional Energy P159107 2025 Active AAA product Caribbean LAC Energy and Extractives Initiative Offshore Wind Development P170090 2025 Active AAA product World Other Energy and Extractives Program Oceans Governance Capacity P173148 2025 Active AAA product World Other Other Building (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    151 152 Making Waves  Appendix C Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Environment, Natural BBSEA: Turning the Tide of Europe and P173334 2025 Active AAA product ECA Resources, and Blue Pollution in the Black Sea Central Asia Economy Urban, Disaster Risk P173517 Urban MDTF for South Africa 2025 Active AAA product South Africa AFE Management, Resilience, and Land Rebuilding Tourism Finance, Competitiveness, P174821 Competitiveness: From Crisis to 2025 Active AAA product World Other and Innovation Sustainability P175786 Aquabusiness Advisory Platform 2025 Active AAA product World Other Agriculture and Food Green, Resilient, and Inclusive Maldives, Environment, Natural Development Advisory Program South P176456 2025 Active AAA product Nepal, and Resources, and for Maldives, Nepal, and Asia Sri Lanka Blue Economy Sri Lanka Vietnam Green Growth Macroeconomics, Trade, P176996 2025 Active AAA product Viet Nam EAP Programmatic ASA and Investment Mexico: Climate Change Environment, Natural P177455 Adaptation and Mitigation 2025 Active AAA product Mexico LAC Resources, and Policies Blue Economy Decarbonizing Maritime P177583 2025 Active AAA product World Other Transport Transport Phase 2 (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Middle East P177919 Maghreb Water Resilience ASA 2025 Active AAA product and North MENA Water Africa Landscape and Airshed Environment, Natural South P178721 Management for Resource 2025 Active AAA product India Resources, and Asia Efficient and Resilient Growth Blue Economy Environment, Natural South Sudan Natural Resources P178749 2025 Active AAA product South Sudan AFE Resources, and Review Blue Economy Environment, Natural Timor-Leste Blue Economy P178790 2025 Active AAA product Timor-Leste EAP Resources, and Development ASA Blue Economy ASA on Urban, Land, and Urban, Disaster Risk P178968 Resilience Multi-Sectoral 2025 Active AAA product Viet Nam EAP Management, Resilience, Coordination in Vietnam and Land Water Supply and Sanitation P179061 2025 Active AAA product World Other Water Global Solutions Group Environment, Natural South Africa: Climate Change P179101 2025 Active AAA product South Africa AFE Resources, and Support Programmatic ASA Blue Economy Programmatic ASA for Lebanon Environment, Natural P179435 Waste Sector Reform and River 2025 Active AAA product Lebanon MENA Resources, and Basins Depollution Blue Economy (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    153 154 Making Waves  Appendix C Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Environment, Natural Bio-Circular-Green Economy P179593 2025 Active AAA product Thailand EAP Resources, and Blue for Thailand Economy Harnessing the Potential of Environment, Natural P179640 the Ocean for Sustainable 2025 Active AAA product Ecuador LAC Resources, and Development in Ecuador Blue Economy Future of Tourism in the Finance, Competitiveness, P179920 2025 Active AAA product Caribbean LAC Caribbean and Innovation Environment, Natural Curbing the Flow: Moving to P180273 2025 Active AAA product World Other Resources, and Global Plastics Action Blue Economy Environment, Natural North Africa Blue Economy and P180756 2025 Active AAA product Maghreb MENA Resources, and Coastal Management—Phase II Blue Economy Sustainable and Inclusive Finance, Competitiveness, P180808 Competitiveness and Finance 2025 Active AAA product Ecuador LAC and Innovation Ecuador Global-Integrating Aquaculture Environment, Natural P181267 into Land and Seascape 2025 Active AAA product World Other Resources, and Programs Blue Economy The Gambia Integrated Urban, Urban, Disaster Risk P172822 Coastal Resilience, and Land 2024 Active AAA product Gambia, The AFW Management, Resilience, Program and Land (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice A Blue Transformation for Pacific Pacific P174990 2024 Active AAA product EAP Transport Maritime Transport Islands KH Enhancing Natural Resource Environment, Natural P175520 and Pollution Management in 2024 Active AAA product Cambodia EAP Resources, and Cambodia Blue Economy Country Environmental Analysis Environment, Natural South P175908 for Building Back a Greener 2024 Active AAA product Bangladesh Resources, and Asia Bangladesh Blue Economy Tanzania-Zanzibar PROBLUE—Supporting Blue Environment, Natural P176401 Economy Policy Implementation 2024 Active AAA product Tanzania AFE Resources, and through Marine Debris Control Blue Economy and Coastal Zone Management Environment, Natural Economics of Nature-Based P176490 2024 Active AAA product World Other Resources, and Tourism Blue Economy Environment, Natural Green Clean Pakistan South P176567 2024 Active AAA product Pakistan Resources, and Programmatic ASA Asia Blue Economy Urban, Disaster Risk P177344 Sustainable Waste Management 2024 Active AAA product World Other Management, Resilience, and Land (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    155 156 Making Waves  Appendix C Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Environment, Natural The Changing Wealth Of Nations P178446 2024 Active AAA product World Other Resources, and (CWON) 2.0 Blue Economy Towards a Sustainable and Environment, Natural South P178489 Resilient Blue Economy in the 2024 Active AAA product Maldives Resources, and Asia Maldives Blue Economy Strengthening Governance of Environment, Natural P179135 Colombia’s Marine and Coastal 2024 Active AAA product Colombia LAC Resources, and Natural Resources Blue Economy Environment, Natural The Blue Economy for Resilient Western and P180103 2024 Active AAA product AFW Resources, and Africa Program (BE4RAP) Central Africa Blue Economy Environment, Natural Fisheries Sector Assessment P176920 2023 Closed AAA product World Other Resources, and Toolkit Rollout Blue Economy Scaling Up WSS Utility P165586 Performance in World Bank 2023 Closed AAA product World Other Water Projects Environment, Natural Strengthening Artisanal Fisheries Andean P166698 2023 Closed AAA product LAC Resources, and in LAC (Peru and Ecuador) countries Blue Economy (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Environment, Natural China: Supporting Marine Plastic P170079 2023 Closed AAA product China EAP Resources, and Debris Solutions Blue Economy Middle East Environment, Natural North Africa Blue Economy and P170596 2023 Closed AAA product and North MENA Resources, and Coastal Management Africa Blue Economy Regional Initiative on Solid Urban, Disaster Risk Waste Management and Marine Central P174701 2023 Closed AAA product LAC Management, Resilience, Environment Protection—Central America and Land America PASA on Urban, Land, and Urban, Disaster Risk P175981 Resilience Multisectoral 2023 Closed AAA product Viet Nam EAP Management, Resilience, Coordination in Vietnam and Land Reducing Marine Plastic Environment, Natural Pollution and Creating Plastic P176178 2023 Closed AAA product Nigeria AFW Resources, and Recycling Market in Lagos State, Blue Economy Nigeria Creating an Enabling Environment, Natural P176291 Environment for Blue Economy 2023 Closed AAA product Jamaica LAC Resources, and Development in Jamaica Blue Economy Environment, Natural Honduras Country Climate and P177142 2023 Closed AAA product Honduras LAC Resources, and Development Report Blue Economy (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    157 158 Making Waves  Appendix C Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Environment, Natural Climate Cost of Standard P178756 2023 Closed World Other Resources, and Plastics—Approach Paper product Blue Economy Environment, Natural Dissemination of Pathways out P179013 2023 Closed AAA product World Other Resources, and of Plastic Pollution ASA Blue Economy Coastal Blue Carbon Environment, Natural P180327 Opportunities for Blue Economy 2023 Closed AAA product World Other Resources, and Development Blue Economy Understanding the Role of Environment, Natural P180753 Fisheries and Aquaculture in 2023 Closed AAA product World Other Resources, and Carbon Sequestration Blue Economy Leveraging the Circular Environment, Natural Economy to Reduce Industrial South P168024 2022 Closed AAA product Bangladesh Resources, and and Marine Pollution in Asia Blue Economy Bangladesh Environment, Natural P170869 Pathways out of Plastic Pollution 2022 Closed AAA product World Other Resources, and Blue Economy Resilient Green Growth Environment, Natural P171011 Programmatic Analytical and 2022 Closed AAA product Lao PDR EAP Resources, and Advisory Services Blue Economy (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Implementation of Nutrition P165298 Sensitive Interventions in 2022 Closed AAA product World Other Water Operations Enhancing Environmental Environment, Natural P167307 Sustainability and Resilience in 2022 Closed AAA product Viet Nam EAP Resources, and Vietnam Blue Economy Regional Initiative on Solid Urban, Disaster Risk Waste Management and P174467 2022 Closed AAA product Caribbean LAC Management, Resilience, Marine Environment and Land Protection—Caribbean Region Environment, Natural Improving the Understanding of P175097 2022 Closed AAA product World Other Resources, and Marine Spatial Planning Blue Economy Reducing Disease Risk in P171307 Aquaculture by Investing in 2022 Closed AAA product World Other Agriculture and Food Health Management Environment, Natural Creating ENB’s Value Proposition Standard P176604 2022 Closed World Other Resources, and for Nature-Based Solutions product Blue Economy Environment, Natural Accelerating Climate Investment P171993 2022 Closed AAA product Philippines EAP Resources, and in the Philippines Blue Economy Environmentally Harmful P175345 2022 Closed AAA product World Other Other Subsidies (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    159 160 Making Waves  Appendix C Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Environment, Natural Blue Economy Development Standard P167405 2021 Closed World Other Resources, and Blue Framework product Economy Decarbonizing Maritime P168079 2021 Closed AAA product World Other Climate Change Transport Environment, Natural Changing Wealth of Nations P169304 2021 Closed AAA product World Other Resources, and 2021 Blue Economy Rethinking Plastics: Support Environment, Natural Southeast P170994 for ASEAN Region and Select 2021 Closed AAA product EAP Resources, and Asia Countries on Marine Plastics Blue Economy Assessing the Economic Impact Environment, Natural P171044 of Protected Areas on Regional 2021 Closed AAA product World Other Resources, and Economies Blue Economy Urban, Disaster Risk Bridging the Institutional Gap in P171405 2021 Closed AAA product World Other Management, Resilience, SWM and Land Environment, Natural Fisheries Sector Assessment Standard P170735 2021 Closed World Other Resources, and Toolkit product Blue Economy (continued) Approval Project Product Project ID Project Legal Name FY Status Line Type Country Region Global Practice Priorities for Sustainably Environment, Natural Managing Sri Lanka’s Coastal South P171747 2021 Closed AAA product Sri Lanka Resources, and Fisheries and the Ecosystems Asia Blue Economy That Support Them Myanmar: Supporting Policies and Strengthening Capacities Environment, Natural P172379 for Blue Economy Development, 2021 Closed AAA product Myanmar EAP Resources, and Plastics Reduction, and Climate Blue Economy Mainstreaming Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: AAA = analytic and advisory activities; AFE = Eastern and Southern Africa; AFW = Western and Central Africa; ASA = advisory services and analytics; ASEAN = Association of Southeast Asian Nations; BBSEA = Blueing the Black Sea; EAP = East Asia and Pacific; ECA = Europe and Central Asia; ENB = Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy; FY = fiscal year; HCFC = hydrochlorofluorocarbon; KH = Cambodia; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; MDTF = multidonor trust fund; MENA = Middle East and North Africa; MNC03 CMU = the Arab Republic of Egypt, Djibouti, and the Republic of Yemen Country Management Unit; OECS = Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States; PASA = Programmatic Advisory Services and Analytics; PDR = People’s Democratic Republic; SWM = solid waste management; WSS = water supply and sanitation. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    161 The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington, DC 20433