Marine Oil Spill Risk Framework

1A: Environmental risk framework

This paper will consider the risk paused by oil spills on the marine environment. There are four items that will be included in the risk assessment namely establishing the context, risk identification, risk analysis, and risk evaluation. Each item is then sub-divided into various elements as explained below.

Establishing the Context

This item will consider the scope of the risk assessment and define the risk criteria. In the latter, the assessment will consider the nature and types of causes/consequences and how they are measured. In addition, relevant legislative regulations that are related to oil pollution and environmental quality standards within the country will be considered.

Risk Identification

This item will consider the sources of risk, the areas of impact, events including changes in circumstances, the causes of events, and their potential consequences.

Risk Analysis

This item will consider the estimation of consequences, estimation of likelihood, estimation of risk, analysis of uncertainty, and analysis of sensitivity. In this step, each of the identified risks will be quantified separately since they differ in terms of frequency and impact. In addition, the oil spill characteristic; for example oil type, spill rate, moment of spillage, and spilled volume will be considered. The item will also consider the efficiency and effectiveness of the available oil spill prevention, detection, and combat instruments and identify more potential preventive and control measures.

Risk Evaluation

This item will compare the risk levels to the risk criteria. This will be attained by comparing the risks estimated during the risk analysis to the previously defined tolerance levels in the establishing the context step. This way, it will be possible to identify and prioritise risks that actually need treatment. The item will also consider alternatives to the risk reduction and control instruments adopted by the shipping company.

The figure below (fig 1) summarises that oil spill risk assessment framework adopted in this paper.

1B: Application of the risk framework to a maritime activity

The selected shipping activity

The shipping company selected for this section is Rix Shipping and the specific shipping activity to be considered is transportation of oil tankers. The transportation of oil remains a major concern among various stakeholders in the marine environmental protection given the potential risk they pause on marine ecosystems. Although the UK is yet to experience major oil spill incident since the Torrey Canyon, oil spill risk assessment is essential given there are other sources of oil spills and the hold a considerable impact on the marine environment. Such sources of oil spills emanate from clean-up operations, and oil spills in harbour approaches and in narrow shipping water ways.

Neves et al. (2015) state that oil spills emanating from transportation constitute about 13% of oil pollution across the world while oil spills from tankers are the most dangerous pollution among the other types of marine pollution. Oil spills during shipping threaten the lives of the members of crew, result in economic loss and resource damage, and negatively affect ecosystems in coastal regions and the marine ecological environment (Goodsir et al. 2019). In relation to environmental impact, the location of the oil spill determines how serious the impact will be in that some areas such as coastal regions have greater capacity of absorbing oil thus the effects could be detrimental (Goodsir n.a). When an oil spillage enters the sea, it spreads and drifts with ocean currents and wind contaminating beaches and damaging seaside tourism areas thus resulting in fatal impact on marine ecological environment, widespread oceanic pollution, and loss of marine life (Goerlandt and Montewka 2015). In light of this information, it is fundamental for shipping companies to consider the risk they pause to the marine environment as they transport oil tankers. Rix Shipping operates a fleet of oil tankers, crew transfer vessels, and estuarial barges. The company also offers other services such as stevedoring, freight forwarding, fuel bunkering, and warehousing. Rix Shipping’s oil tankers are Lerrix, Lizrix, and Rix Merlin. This paper considers Rix’s oil tanker namely Rix Phoenix, which is registered in Hull Port and has a capacity of 165 tonnes.

Establishing the context

The scope of the risk assessment is the potential risk of transporting oil tankers on the marine environment. Rix Shipping is based in the UK and therefore should consider international agreements signed by the UK government and domestic legislation on oil spill pollution such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Among the drivers and trends impacting oil spill hazard is globalisation, which has increased rate and volume in which oil is transported between countries and continents thus depicting a positive trend in the oil spill hazards (Elliott et al. 2017). Following the Torrey Canyon disaster, the marine environment stakeholders show heightened concern and pollution cases emanating from major oil spills are decreasing (Burdon et al. 2017). In addition, UK has set up various bodies such as the Marine Pollution Control Unit, which tackles minor oil spillages thus discourages such pollution sources. The UK also has an oil spill contingency plan as well as a marine pollution contingency plan, which offer guidelines to firms in the shipping industry in relation to protecting the marine environment. The ultimate goal of the oil spill risk management is to improve the environmental status of the marine and coastal regions surrounding the Hull Port and Port of Montrose where Rix Shipping operate. The geographical coverage is the English waters as the UK coast. The accident types considered are complete rapture of an oil tanker due to explosion or ship-to-ship collision resulting in catastrophic spill, sinking of tankers due to climate change resulting in major spills, operational spills due to faulty fittings resulting in minor spills, and minor spills realised during clean-up operations. Likelihood is defined as the probability that oil will reach the English waters and/or the coast based on oil spills simulations. The level of risk is determined qualitatively.

Risk identification

The potential sources of oil pollution are explosion of a tanker were two ships collided, oil spills were a tanker sank, oil spills during clean-up operations, and oil spills in harbour approaches or in narrow shipping waterways. The variables affecting the oil spill hazard are oil spill characteristics such as spill rate, spill volume, and type of oil and their impact on the marine environment will be measured quantitatively. The considered areas of impact are environmental, social and economic. The considered pollution events are accidental oil spills and operational oil spills. The causes of these events could be unintentional attacks, ship-to-ship collision, sinking of ship, and operational inefficiencies.

Risk analysis

Based on marine environment protection literature, oils spills have major impact on the environment, significant economic impacts, and some social impacts. According to Chen et al. (2018), oil spills have a potentially major impact of marine ecosystems, significant socio-economic impacts on the communities that depend on coastal resources, and high acute costs of cleaning waters and removing oil from wrecks. The likelihood that Rix Phoenix will actually pollute vulnerable areas varies depending on the source of the spill and the volume of spills (see fig 2).

The available oil spill prevention and mitigation instruments are somewhat effective and efficient. The UK international pollution prevention measures are well-implemented at Rix Shipping and are further modified to fit the context of the company. Nonetheless, most of the major spills are caused by bad weather and accidents of which the international measures cannot contain. In addition, spills emanating from daily operation inefficiencies are considered insignificant and normal yet they have an effect on the marine environment. Figure 3 presents the risk levels.

The uncertainty analysis considers the spill rate, spill volume, and type of oil. The spill volume is determined by the time of the spillage and the duration of the spills. For example, a spill at night is likely to last longer than during the day when the crew is more alert. Among the evaluated variables which are spilled volume, oil type, spill time, and duration of the spill, the oil type and the duration of the spill are the major controlling factors and they determine the magnitude of the effect caused on the marine and coastal environment (Chen et al. 2019).

Risk evaluation

The priority areas for risk treatment are spills when approaching harbours, spills when sailing on shallow waterways, spills during cleaning and filling of oil tanks, and other minor spills during normal operations. In order to reduce the risk on oil spills, the following alternatives should be considered: (1) develop an organisational emergency plan as guided by the national marine pollution contingency plan and the oil spill contingency plan, (2) develop an oil spill reporting system so the company can actually establish the cumulative effect of its operations, (3) define a national or regional competent authority which oversees the operations of the company, and (4) consider recovery strategy in the case of a major catastrophe arising from bad weather or accident.

1C: Reflection

The developed oil spill risk assessment framework suits the shipping activity selected in the paper. It helps identify the sources of oil spills, their likelihood, and impact on the marine environment. The framework further helps in identifying the risk treatments that should be prioritised by the selected company. Among the strengths of the risk assessment framework is the ability to distinguish the variables that determine the magnitude of risk facing the marine environment and the coastal region; spill duration and type of oil are identified as the major variables. Nonetheless, the framework qualitatively analyses the risk which means that the analysis is based on the existing marine environment protection literature. In future, a quantitative analysis should be adopted as it will help in providing actual scores to ach of the oil spill variables and their effect of the marine environment and coastal region. In addition, the framework does not identify the parameter against which sensitivity is analysed thus future frameworks should be more elaborate. Further, the risk assessment framework does not identify what constitutes oil type, that is, what types of oil are there and how does each oil type affect the marine environment. Future frameworks should therefore categorise oil types and separately score their impact of the marine environment. Despite these limitations, the oil spill risk assessment framework developed in this paper achieved the purpose for which it was designed.

How small-scale fisheries can support the transition to a sustainable blue economy and contribute to the delivery of Sustainable Development Goal 14

Description of the chosen example

There are many issues affecting the management of fisheries ranging from the classically persistent challenges to the current population dynamic and even to the broader range of processes that affect the dynamics of the living marine resources (Lillebø et al. 2017). There have been numerous calls to implement ecosystem-based fisheries management given the recognition that business-as-usual single-species management has not fully addressed the issues that affect fisheries (Grafeld et al. 2017). Heeding to this call, ecosystem-based fisheries management literature has been systematic and has exclusively considered all fisheries, risks, pressures, and outcomes for specific marine ecosystems. Throughout this literature, fishing has been seen to improve human well-being and social equity but there have been issues relating to how fishing reduces environmental risks and ecological species. However, small-scale fishing has been seen to align to the definition of a sustainable blue economy as it improves the well-being of those involved, promotes their social status as well as preserves the marine environment (Cohen et al. 2019). Small-scale fisheries is also known to be sustainable as it does not harm the marine environment and does not risk living marine resources such as fish thus can be continued forever (Pauly 2018). The sea and the coastal areas are drivers of the economy. Indeed, marine fisheries have been known to have economic benefits; in essence, small-scale fisheries are worth about 25% of the revenue generated by EU fisheries thus have a high value in the seafood supply chain (Keen et al. 2018). In the early days, industrial fishing was a major source of income but in the recent past, industrial fishing has been discouraged for it is not sustainable. According to Hadjimichael (2018), industrial fishing heavily relies on fossil fuels, which are not sustainable and not sensitive to marine ecosystems thus cannot be considered in the blue economy. On the other hand, Glover et al. (2018) state that fisheries has turned into a global ever-expanding enterprise, which cannot be continued forever in that all species will be fished out thus industrial fishing cannot be considered in the blue economy. Whereas industrial fishing cannot be considered sustainable and part of the blue economy, small-scale fisheries have a role to play in the blue economy. Pauly et al. (2014) argue that artisanal, subsistence, and recreational fisheries can be accommodated by the blue economy. The authors state that artisanal fisheries are comprised of locally-based operations and the caught fish is solely used for human consumption, thus fits into the blue economy. In addition, Palomares and Pauly (2018) write that artisanal fisheries use less fuel and are more selective as compared to the industrial fisheries, which implies they have insignificant impact on marine ecosystems and resources and hence need to be included in the blue economy. Further, Perez-Cobb et al. (2014) assert that artisanal fisheries provide both animal protein and micronutrients to local consumers that most need it and as such improving their well-being, which shows that artisanal fisheries is positively related to the blue economy. Subsistence fisheries is normally practised by women and intended for consumption by their families thus considered smaller than artisanal fisheries (Lloret et al. 2018). Subsistence fisheries contribute to the food security of these families thus can be associated with economic and social benefits. Recreational fisheries have in the recent past triggered economic debates in that every fish caught by tourist anglers is seven times its value in a commercial fishery (Belhabib et al. 2016). From this perspective, recreational fisheries cannot be considered economic viable but given that they contribute to the livelihood of the tourist anglers, they can be accommodated by the blue economy.

Legal and regulatory context of small-scale fisheries

For a very long time, EU fishery policy such as subsidies, quotas, and management systems has focused on large-scale fishing leaving a large gap in knowledge on the environmental, biological, management, socioeconomic, and policy aspects of small-scale fisheries. Nonetheless, the need for sustainable small-scale fisheries is highlighted in EU and international policy; for example Water Framework Directive (WFD), Europe 2020, European Commission’s Common Fisheries Policy, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). In particular, the new Common Fisheries Policy aims at having differentiated management regime for small-scale fisheries in Europe (Hadjimichael 2018) and remains the main EU policy governing small-scale fisheries. In addition, the European parliament through a vote on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) agreed that small-scale fisheries have a significant role to play for the sustainability of the local coastal communities (Silver et al. 2015). Different counties have adopted varying regulations in the governance of fisheries in order to ensure that fishing is accommodated in the sustainable blue economy. In Europe, a theory of fishing has been developed which emphasises rational exploitation of stocks based on optimal mortality and mesh sizes, which means that industrial fishing can only be practised in countries and waters where it has not been previously practised in order to rebuild stocks that have been depleted in the active fishing points (Keen et al. 2018). There has also been legislation requiring fishers to use non-destructive fishing methods such as trawls, which would preserve marine ecosystems as well as ensure fishing is conducted in a selective manner thus ensuring different species are preserved (Barbesgaard 2018). The most recent legislation is the landing obligation, which is aimed at stimulating the adoption of selectivity measures by small-scale fishers. Under this obligation, fishers have to keep all catches on board, landed and count them against quotas so that the undersized fish is not marketed for human consumption purposes (Ababouch and Fipi 2015). Initially the landing obligation was effective for certain fisheries namely industrial, pelagic, and Baltic Salmon and cod fisheries but in 2019 all the European fisheries came under the landing obligation whereby all the exploited fish species are managed (Villasante et al. 2016). This includes identifying accidental catches of non-target species, which are then returned to the seas but only if they are captured alive and could survive if returned to the sea (Villasante et al. 2019).

Analysis of how the legal/regulatory context inhibits or enables transition to a sustainable blue economy

The EU and international policy framework has considerable effects of the sustainable blue economy. The landing obligation enables transition to the sustainable blue economy by ensuring that depleted species are restocked thus cushioning ecological scarcities. This is attainable because the landing obligation is applied on a fishery by fishery basis, which implies that TACs, quotas and/or minimum sizes are established under which the caught fish are managed. Based on the number of every species that are caught, the management identifies the non-target species and defines the prohibited species, which allows such species time to reproduce and thus restock before they are fished out again. This policy is therefore sustainable as it allows all species to be fished forever, which improves human wellbeing as well as promotes social equity. The EMFF also supports transition into a sustainable blue economy in that it provides fishers financial assistance to participate in environmental, economic, cultural, and social projects at the local level. Indeed, Guyader et al. (2013) note that the EMFF is a fundamental source of financing for economic growth and supports fishermen in the transition to sustainable fishing. For example, EMFF supports the printing of leaflets that are distributed to small-scale fishers providing insights of sustainable fishing. Through such resources, fishermen are able to identify the species under threat and avoid catching them and marketing them for human consumption (Jentoft 2017). In addition, through such resources small-scale fishers gain a better understanding of fishing methods that reduce environmental risks, which is a component of the sustainable blue economy (Schuhbauer et al. 2017). The common fisheries policy (CFP) directly relates to sustainable blue economy in that it seeks to ensure that maritime resources are managed in a way that aligned to the objectives of achieving economic, social, and employment benefits, attaining sustainable fisheries, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies (Basurto et al. 2013). On the other hand, the MSFD has a primary goal of achieving and maintaining Good Environmental Status (GES) through which conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity is attained (Cohen and Foale 2013). The policy also seeks to see the creation of global network of maritime protected areas where the threatened marine species can be restocked. Therefore, the MSFD has an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities, which ensure that marine goods and services are used in a sustainable way.

Other factors that might inhibit or enable the transition to a sustainable blue economy

The major factor that might inhibit the transition to a sustainable blue economy is poor governance. According to Schuhbauer and Sumaila (2016), decision-making in small-scale fisheries is usually given scant attention and most of the FAO member countries do not record their catch. This implies that the number of catches cannot be monitored resulting to catching of even the prohibited and non-targeted species. In the same vein, Kittinger et al. (2013) write that the large number of boats and fishers, high diversities of gear and target species and the relatively low incomes for small-scale fishers are governance challenges hindering transition to the sustainable blue economy. On the other hand, Weeratunge et al. (2014) write that small-scale fishers are often neglected by the government as their impact is not reflected on the national economy, which can lead to pathological development and habitat and resource destruction when they are used as ‘social dumps’ for the marginalised groups such as the landless farmers.

The link between sustainable blue economy and SDG 14

While the sustainable blue economy is concerned with improving human wellbeing and social equity and reducing ecological scarcities and environmental risks (Pauly 2017), SDG 14 seeks to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development (Ntona and Morgera 2018). The blue economy promotes sustainability because by reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities, it ensures the same resources can be used to meet the needs of humans in the future. This relates to SDG 14 which also seeks to ensure that the use of oceans, seas, and marine resources can be continued together. For instance, a sustainable blue economy would underscore the importance of landing obligations to ensure all species are protected while SDG 14 would do the same by ensuring that these species are not all consumed today leaving none for the future. As such, sustainable blue economy and SDG 14 would call for small-scale fishers to identify the species under the risk of extinction and declare them the prohibited species for a given time period so that these species can reproduce over this period of time. This approach is sustainable because it does not stop humans from consuming fish but it helps them identify scarce species and allow them more time to reproduce so they can be caught in the future to satisfy the same needs. Therefore, sustainable blue economy and SDG 14 share a common objective of ensuring marine species are fished in a sustainable manner.

Management solution in support of the transition to a sustainable blue economy

As earlier mentioned, sustainable blue economy legislation majorly focuses on large-scale fisheries neglecting the role of small-scale fisheries in the sustainable blue economy. This implies that the governments and the responsible departments should develop policies for small-scale fisheries while evaluating the applicability of the available policies in small-scale fisheries. Second, the governance of the small-scale fisheries has to be improved. There needs to measures put in place to ensure that all the small-scale fishers report their catches and to make sure they use environmental friendly boats (Lloret et al. 2018). Good governance should also regulate the number of small-scale fishers and the areas in which they conduct fishing to ensure they effect to the marine environment does not compare to that of commercial fishers (Villasante et al. 2016). It is also advisable that FAO develop a framework to guide small-scale fishers on reporting and ensure these fishers diligently report their catches by developing bodies to support the small-scale fishers. Finally, the government should recognise the role of small-scale fisheries in the blue economy and therefore develop measures to guide these fishers (Jentoft 2017).

Take a deeper dive into A Critical Analysis of Human Impact on the Ecosystem with our additional resources.

Maritime spatial planning (MSP) is a process through which relevant the authorities of EU member states analyse and organise human activities in the marine areas in order to attain economic, ecological, and social objectives while considering the spatial allocation of maritime activities as the central focus of the decision-making process (Gissi et al. 2017). In developing marine spatial plans, these states should analyse relevant existing and future uses and activities and their impacts on the environment and natural resources with a primary aim of having sustainable development of maritime sectors as well as protection, preservation, and improvement of the marine environment (Christie et al. 2014). At all times, MSP seeks to ensure that the collective pressure of all activities is kept within levels compatible with the realisation of good environmental status. With such a clear objective, the major question would be how effective maritime spatial planning has been in promoting good environmental status across the globe. Globally, the evolution of MSP and ocean zoning has been integral to the goal of ecosystem-based marine management and this was traditionally motivated by national and international interests in marine protected areas such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Christie et al. 2014). In most cases, MSP has attained its goal but in some instances they have failed. According to Flannery Flannery et al. (2016), MSP actively enhances synergies, facilities co-use of maritime spaces while reducing the complexities between the interests of marine spatial and those of stakeholders. In such cases, MSP offers a means of solving strategic conflict not at a project level but as a regional level. On the other hand, Jentoft and Knol (2014) write that MSP maximises protection of marine biodiversity through prioritising conservation needs where necessary. For example, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is among the largest marine ecosystems in the world and one of the richest and most diverse. In addition, the area is considered a multiple-use park that allows a wide range of activities such as ports and shipping, fishing, defence activities, recreation, scientific research, marine tourism, and indigenous traditional use. While most of these uses are permitted, MSP has been essential in protecting and preserving the values of the park and control, reduce, and prevent conflicting uses of the ocean spaces in the park. SMP has therefore seen the prohibition of some activities such as mining and regulation of other activities such as tourism and fishing. Zoning is a major part of MSP in this case and it has helped identify areas to be used for conservation, land use, coastal defence, navigation, military activities, fishing, sub-marine cables, recreation, mineral extraction, tourism, and oil and gas among others. Nonetheless, there is a need to continue protecting this park from human activities that do not show value to the park and as a result, the park has been considered a world heritage area and later a sensitive sea area (Jentoft and Knol 2014).

Marine spatial planning has not always met its objectives. In some cases, there have been dilemmas particularly in the European marine spatial planning practices in marine renewables and marine protected areas. According to Kidd and Shaw (2014), the only solution to avoid spatial conflicts of incompatible uses between marine renewable energy and marine protected area is to locate the renewable energy away from the protected areas, which can only be attained through designation of exclusive use zones. Such an approach would ensure only one type of use in a given area. However, there are cases where renewable energy developers want to conduct their projects in areas designated for protected areas for lack of other suitable areas (Kyriazi et al. 2016). Where such co-existence is to be pursued, both positive and negative impacts should be considered and if the negatives are short-term, the co-existence should be approved. For example, if some species of fisheries are prohibited in a renewable energy zone, habitat protection and conservation benefits should be developed inside the zone or in the surrounding areas (Flannery 2016). This means that the existence of spatial plans limit site selection and in some cases indicate areas where development is prohibited or inappropriate. A study conducted by Gissi et al. (2017) show that the coexistence between marine renewable energies and marine protected areas significantly differ in the European marine areas: on one edge of the gradient, coexistence departs from prohibition and renewable energies are developed in exclusive use zone while on the other end coexistence is allowed and is facilitated through a deploy and monitor approach. On the other hand, Kyriazi et al. (2016) establish that for MSP to succeed, there must be commitment from national and regional levels, which is always hard to attain. Therefore, in as much as marine spatial planning is established to be effective at balancing the interests of maritime activities with the need to protect the marine environment, this has not always been realised as some resources cannot co-exist when zoned in the same area.

References

Barbesgaard, M., 2018. Blue growth: savior or ocean grabbing?. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 45(1), pp.130-149.

Basurto, X., Bennett, A., Weaver, A.H., Dyck, S.R.V. and Aceves-Bueno, J.S., 2013. Cooperative and noncooperative strategies for small-scale fisheries’ self-governance in the globalization era: Implications for conservation. Ecology and Society, 18(4).

Belhabib, D., Campredon, P., Lazar, N., Sumaila, U.R., Baye, B.C., Kane, E.A. and Pauly, D., 2016. Best for pleasure, not for business: evaluating recreational marine fisheries in West Africa using unconventional sources of data. palgrave communications, 2(1), pp.1-10.

Burdon, D., Elliott, M., Atkins, J.P., Borja, A., Cormier, R., de Jonge, V.N. and Turner, R.K., 2017. “And DPSIR begat DAPSI (W) R (M)!”-A unifying framework for marine environmental management. Marine pollution bulletin, 118(1-2).

Chen, J., Zhang, W., Li, S., Zhang, F., Zhu, Y. and Huang, X., 2018. Identifying critical factors of oil spill in the tanker shipping industry worldwide. Journal of Cleaner Production, 180, pp.1-10.

Christie, N., Smyth, K., Barnes, R. and Elliott, M., 2014. Co-location of activities and designations: A means of solving or creating problems in marine spatial planning?. Marine Policy, 43, pp.254-261.

Cohen, P., Allison, E.H., Andrew, N.L., Cinner, J.E., Evans, L.S., Fabinyi, M., Garces, L.R., Hall, S.J., Hicks, C.C., Hughes, T.P. and Jentoft, S., 2019. Securing a just space for small-scale fisheries in the blue economy. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, p.171.

Elliott, M., Burdon, D., Atkins, J.P., Borja, A., Cormier, R., De Jonge, V.N. and Turner, R.K., 2017. “And DPSIR begat DAPSI (W) R (M)!”-a unifying framework for marine environmental management. Marine pollution bulletin, 118(1-2), pp.27-40.

Flannery, W., Ellis, G., Ellis, G., Flannery, W., Nursey-Bray, M., van Tatenhove, J.P., Kelly, C., Coffen-Smout, S., Fairgrieve, R., Knol, M. and Jentoft, S., 2016. Exploring the winners and losers of marine environmental governance/Marine spatial planning: Cui bono?/“More than fishy business”: epistemology, integration and conflict in marine spatial planning/Marine spatial planning: power and scaping/Surely not all planning is evil?/Marine spatial planning: a Canadian perspective/Maritime spatial planning–“ad utilitatem omnium”/Marine spatial planning:“it is better to be on the train than being hit by it”/Reflections from the perspective of recreational anglers .... Planning Theory & Practice, 17(1), pp.121-151.

Gissi, E., Menegon, S., Sarretta, A., Appiotti, F., Maragno, D., Vianello, A., Depellegrin, D., Venier, C. and Barbanti, A., 2017. Addressing uncertainty in modelling cumulative impacts within maritime spatial planning in the Adriatic and Ionian region. PLoS One, 12(7).

Glover, A.G., Wiklund, H., Chen, C. and Dahlgren, T.G., 2018. Point of View: Managing a sustainable deep-sea ‘blue economy’requires knowledge of what actually lives there. eLife, 7, p.e41319.

Goerlandt, F. and Montewka, J., 2015. A framework for risk analysis of maritime transportation systems: a case study for oil spill from tankers in a ship–ship collision. Safety Science, 76, pp.42-66.

Goodsir, F., Lonsdale, J.A., Mitchell, P.J., Suehring, R., Farcas, A., Whomersley, P., Brant, J.L., Clarke, C., Kirby, M.F., Skelhorn, M. and Hill, P.G., 2019. A standardised approach to the environmental risk assessment of potentially polluting wrecks. Marine pollution bulletin, 142, pp.290-302.

Guyader, O., Berthou, P., Koutsikopoulos, C., Alban, F., Demaneche, S., Gaspar, M.B., Eschbaum, R., Fahy, E., Tully, O., Reynal, L. and Curtil, O., 2013. Small scale fisheries in Europe: A comparative analysis based on a selection of case studies. Fisheries Research, 140, pp.1-13.

Jentoft, S., 2017. Small-scale fisheries within maritime spatial planning: knowledge integration and power. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 19(3), pp.266-278.

Keen, M.R., Schwarz, A.M. and Wini-Simeon, L., 2018. Towards defining the Blue Economy: Practical lessons from pacific ocean governance. Marine Policy, 88, pp.333-341.

Kittinger, J.N., Finkbeiner, E.M., Ban, N.C., Broad, K., Carr, M.H., Cinner, J.E., Gelcich, S., Cornwell, M.L., Koehn, J.Z., Basurto, X. and Fujita, R., 2013. Emerging frontiers in social-ecological systems research for sustainability of small-scale fisheries. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(3-4), pp.352-357.

Kyriazi, Z., Maes, F. and Degraer, S., 2016. Coexistence dilemmas in European marine spatial planning practices. The case of marine renewables and marine protected areas. Energy Policy, 97, pp.391-399.

Lloret, J., Cowx, I.G., Cabral, H., Castro, M., Font, T., Gonçalves, J.M., Gordoa, A., Hoefnagel, E., Matić-Skoko, S., Mikkelsen, E. and Morales-Nin, B., 2018. Small-scale coastal fisheries in European Seas are not what they were: ecological, social and economic changes. Marine Policy, 98, pp.176-186.

Neves, A.A.S., Pinardi, N., Martins, F., Janeiro, J., Samaras, A., Zodiatis, G. and De Dominicis, M., 2015. Towards a common oil spill risk assessment framework–adapting ISO 31000 and addressing uncertainties. Journal of environmental management, 159, pp.158-168.

Palomares, M.L.D. and Pauly, D., 2019. Coastal Fisheries: The Past, Present, and Possible Futures. In Coasts and Estuaries (pp. 569-576). Elsevier.

Perez-Cobb, A.U., Arce-Ibarra, A.M., García-Ortega, M., Valdéz-Moreno, M. and Azueta, J.O., 2014. Artisanal recreational fisheries: using a combined approach to fishery assessment aimed at providing insights for fishery managers. Marine Resource Economics, 29(2), pp.89-109.

Schuhbauer, A., Chuenpagdee, R., Cheung, W.W., Greer, K. and Sumaila, U.R., 2017. How subsidies affect the economic viability of small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy, 82, pp.114-121.

Silver, J.J., Gray, N.J., Campbell, L.M., Fairbanks, L.W. and Gruby, R.L., 2015. Blue economy and competing discourses in international oceans governance. The Journal of Environment & Development, 24(2), pp.135-160.

Villasante, S., Antelo, M., Christou, M., Fauconnet, L., Frangoudes, K., Maynou, F., Morato, T., Pita, C., Pita, P., Stergiou, K.I. and Teixeira, C., 2019. The implementation of the landing obligation in small-scale fisheries of southern European Union countries. In The European Landing Obligation (pp. 89-108). Springer, Cham.

Villasante, S., Pierce, G.J., Pita, C., Guimeráns, C.P., Rodrigues, J.G., Antelo, M., Da Rocha, J.M., Cutrín, J.G., Hastie, L.C., Veiga, P. and Sumaila, U.R., 2016. Fishers' perceptions about the EU discards policy and its economic impact on small-scale fisheries in Galicia (North West Spain). Ecological Economics, 130, pp.130-138.