全球智库信息集成服务系统

This report contains a correction.

For background information, see “Overview of U.S. Ocean Governance” and “Overview of China Ocean Governance.”

中文版

The United States and China share a deep common interest in ocean protection. The world’s ocean and coastal resources are currently under threat from overfishing, pollution, and unchecked resource extraction. Global ocean health is declining rapidly and has already reached crisis levels. As the largest ocean stakeholders—with unparalleled dependence on seaborne trade, the economic vitality of coastal cities, and the production and consumption of living marine resources—the United States and China face new, increasing economic and security risks from the degradation of global ocean health.

Yet the ocean also represents a tremendous opportunity for the two countries to turn this trend around. The marine environment has a proven capacity to heal and rebuild itself under proper management, and as the two largest economies in the world, the United States and China have an ability as well as a responsibility to rally other countries on issues relating to the global commons. In the run-up to the 2015 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties in Paris, it was a bilateral agreement between the United States and China that paved the way for multilateral agreement on a landmark climate accord.¹ The same could happen on ocean protection. If the United States and China can forge a common agenda for action, the rest of the world will follow.

To be sure, thus far in 2018, the U.S.-China relationship has trended in a direction that has made game-changing cooperation increasingly difficult to achieve—at least in the near term. On the U.S. side, the Trump administration is viewing its policy toward China through a narrow lens that focuses exclusively on trade and North Korea; all other issues struggle to find space on the leadership agenda. That approach prioritizes immediate U.S. concerns but also makes it difficult to pursue and expand bilateral cooperation on broader, longer-term issues, such as ocean protection, where the two nations share common interests and China has a growing capability to contribute to the global commons. While the U.S. and Chinese governments grapple with difficult issues, at a nongovernmental level, their experts have an opportunity to join forces in an effort to lay groundwork for future cooperation on broader issues such as ocean protection.

That is exactly what the “Blue Future” dialogue aimed to achieve. Despite the great need and potential for U.S.-China cooperation in this domain, ocean issues remain a relatively unexplored area in U.S.-China relations. Officials from the two countries added a dedicated track on ocean cooperation to the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in 2015 and 2016. Those preliminary discussions produced or continued a few high-level areas of agreement, including a marine protected area in Antarctica’s Ross Sea and efforts to combat unsustainable fishing, marine pollution, and marine litter.² Thus far, however, U.S.-China government-to-government discussions have only managed to probe the surface of the two countries’ interests in ocean protection and sustainable development. More work is needed to map out exactly where U.S. and Chinese interests converge, where they diverge, and where the two countries should focus their efforts over the near-, medium-, and long-term.

In other areas of U.S.-China relations, nongovernment experts have always played a critical role in driving that process forward. Compared with their government counterparts, U.S. and Chinese nongovernment experts are generally able to speak more frankly with one another and delve into sensitive political areas without fearing that putting new ideas on the table could undercut their diplomatic position. They can also collaborate on joint research projects that help both countries develop a set of common assumptions and common data that has been lacking in the ocean domain. Many of the best U.S. and Chinese ocean experts still do not know one another. As with U.S. and Chinese experts working in energy, climate change, or hard security issues, ocean experts should seek opportunities for increased collaboration, such as repeated interaction at bilateral conferences, collaboration on joint research projects, and development of the personal connections that make it possible to forge new understandings and achieve breakthroughs on seemingly intractable issues.

With support from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Center for American Progress is bringing U.S. and Chinese ocean experts together to help fill this gap. In June 2017, CAP convened eight leading ocean science and policy experts from the United States and eight from China for Blue Future 2017, a three-day forum held in Honolulu, Hawaii. The event aimed to push beyond the official-track discussions in order to better understand where U.S. and Chinese interests align, where they differ, and where the two nations should focus their efforts to facilitate breakthrough cooperation that can lead to bilateral progress on these issues and serve as a model for the rest of the world. The group discovered that U.S. and Chinese ocean experts share more areas of agreement than disagreement. At the same time, the group was also struck by the differences that emerged; indeed, many participants remarked that, prior to the meeting, they did not fully understand these differences.

The 2017 forum brought together experts in four key issue areas: global fisheries policy; the blue economy; polar issues, including both the Arctic and Antarctic; and global environmental challenges. Participants discussed these specific issues as well as cross-cutting implications for the United States and China.

As a result of these discussions, participants came to the following conclusions about how the United States and China could collaborate more effectively with one another as they look to bring an ethos of sustainability, ecological security, and economic development to future ocean management science and policy.

• Foster bilateral relationships. In both nations, leaders in ocean policy, marine science, civil society, and ocean industries should prioritize investments of time, energy, and resources to build bilateral relationships. The group acknowledged differences that have made such partnerships difficult in the past, but they also recognized that fostering professional relationships would build trust and mutual understanding, enhance scientific research endeavors, and pay dividends for years to come.
• Build institutional capacity in China. Chinese participants in the Blue Future dialogue identified a need for collaboration in order to help build institutional capacity in China across several specific areas related to oceanographic science capabilities.
• Grow the sustainable blue economy. The United States and China should remain open-minded to further expansion of their definitions of the ocean economy sector and to improving mutual understanding of basic terminology. American and Chinese specialists may need to begin by drafting a Chinese-English glossary of terminology such as “sustainable fishing,” “illegal fishing,” “blue economy,” and “marine protected area.” Ensuring clarity of communication is critical to the collaborations called for in this report and to developing mutually understood and beneficial outcomes.
• Maintain some form of government-to-government dialogue on ocean issues. At a time when U.S.-China relations present so few areas for positive cooperation, it will be critical to maintain some form of routine, official-track communication on ocean issues. Washington and Beijing should consider launching a dedicated platform—either as a fourth comprehensive dialogue pillar or entirely outside of the existing three-pillar platform—in order to provide more political space for ocean cooperation as it relates to security and economy.
• Create a narrative on ocean cooperation. The lack of a single, strong, cohesive, and overarching narrative on ocean cooperation represents a major deficiency that is precluding action on critical ocean issues within the international policy sphere. In its absence, advocates and scientific specialists have tended to fragmentize ocean issues, which has resulted in a dispersion of political capital and ignorance by key policymakers in both countries.

The Blue Future conference presented a powerful opportunity to delve into these issues and begin to sketch out a path toward enhanced future collaboration between these two ocean superpowers. This work can and should continue, regardless of how other U.S.-China issues fare. If, in the near term, it is too difficult to move forward on these issues at the government-to-government level, there is ample space for nongovernment experts—including those from the commercial sector—to drive initial progress.

One fundamental finding from the Blue Future discussion is that experts from the United States and China have much to learn about how the two nations differ and what their distinct approaches mean for potential cooperation. This insight was among the most striking, particularly for the U.S. participants. The two nations often approach ocean issues from fundamentally different angles and occupy different parts of the value chain. For example, the United States is one of the world’s biggest importers of seafood, while China is the largest exporter. Even something as simple as looking at policy issues from the perspective of the other side proved to be an eye-opening exercise, and it was clear that proposals for cooperation on ocean issues must be based on a solid mutual understanding of each nation’s position—both geographical and economic—and on domestic politics. The discussions at the conference found four key factors to be particularly important for each nation: ocean geography; commercial ocean activity; domestic political and regulatory context; and growing sustainability awareness.

Ocean geography

Chinese participants in the Blue Future dialogue repeatedly pointed out that the United States has more abundant ocean resources than China and a smaller population vying for them. China has a population that exceeds 1.3 billion—roughly a billion more than that of the United States—yet it has a far smaller exclusive economic zone (EEZ), the area of ocean under national control for purposes of natural resource management. The United States has extensive shorelines on the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic oceans; the Gulf of Mexico; and remote island territories in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean, which collectively give it jurisdiction over 3.4 million square nautical miles of ocean. This ocean area is larger than the land mass of the entire United States and is the second largest EEZ of any nation in the world—behind only France, which tops the list largely as a result of its numerous island territories.³

From the perspective of some participants, U.S.-China ocean geography comparisons are complicated by the fact that China’s maritime territory is a matter of debate and uncertainty. Beijing asserts jurisdiction or sovereignty over a total of approximately 1.2 million square miles, including both its internationally recognized EEZ and the area inside the internationally controversial “Nine-Dash Line,” which encompasses virtually all of the South China Sea over which China claims jurisdiction.⁴ The United States and other countries, following legal standards set forth under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, regard some of China’s maritime claims as inconsistent with international law.⁵ However, regardless of how one assesses China’s maritime territory, it is clearly smaller than that of the United States.

Commercial ocean activity

Chinese participants in the Blue Future dialogue stated that China’s smaller ocean area, combined with the marine resource development pressure exerted by such a large population, forces the nation to balance environmental sustainability with pressing human development needs. The need for China to provide food and employment for all of its citizens places increasing pressure on regional fisheries and creates strong incentives to seek additional protein capacity from aquaculture and distant water fishing—the practice of purchasing rights to fish in other countries’ waters. Although some U.S. experts pointed out that smaller ocean geographical areas are easier to monitor and police than larger ones, Chinese scholars stressed that Chinese leaders face much higher political costs than their U.S. counterparts when imposing limitations on commercial ocean activity.

Domestic political and regulatory context

The United States and China also have different political systems, which translates into differences in how the two nations formulate and implement ocean policy. In China’s top-down political system, it is easier for central leaders in Beijing to set national-level priorities but hard to enforce policy implementation at lower levels. In the U.S. democratic system, national-level priorities continue to be hotly debated and, at times, divided along political lines. Certain issues, such as establishment of marine protected areas or permitting of offshore fossil fuel development, are far more palatable in some regions and partisan factions of the United States than others. In some areas, these divergences extend to core acceptance of even the most basic facts of climate change science, with some more conservative-leaning states such as Florida even going so far as to ban the use of the term “climate change” from inclusion in public policy initiatives; in other regions, climate action is a political necessity.⁶ However, once U.S. ocean management laws and regulations are enacted, policy implementation is much easier to monitor and enforce than in China, and compliance is relatively high.

Despite those macro-level differences between the U.S. and Chinese political systems, the two nations share a similar bureaucratic structure for ocean governance. In the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the primary agency responsible for ocean regulation, though it shares oversight of certain activities with other agencies, including the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in the case of offshore energy decisions and the U.S. Coast Guard, which assists with enforcement and safety of navigation. Meanwhile, in China, the Ministry of Agriculture oversees marine fisheries policy, while the State Oceanographic Agency (SOA)—under the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources—oversees management of coastal and ocean spaces. In March 2018, China announced a “State Council Institutional Reform Plan” that redistributes the responsibilities of the erstwhile State Oceanic Administration to the newly founded Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Ecological Environment, and the State Forestry and Grassland Administration of the Ministry of Natural Resources; the Ministry of Agriculture was also renamed as the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. Time will tell how this restructuring at the central level will play out in terms of China’s ocean governance.⁷ At both the national and the state or provincial level, each country also has numerous other agencies and departments that play a role in local implementation and other specific areas of ocean management, such as water quality control; enforcement of maritime law and safety of life at sea; and offshore oil and gas development.

Both the United States and China have found the cross-cutting nature of ocean regulatory issues to be a challenge requiring new innovations in political leadership. In recent years, both nations have developed interagency structures designed to improve coordination on ocean management. In 2012, the United States established a National Ocean Council and a regional ocean management process,⁸ and one year later, China established a National Oceanic Commission.⁹ Each provides a forum for leaders from different agencies and levels of government to consult with each other and bring greater coherence to the complex world of ocean governance.

Growing sustainability awareness

Until recently, the two nations had taken somewhat different approaches toward environmental issues, though that gap has closed significantly. In the United States, the environmental movement began in the late 1960s and was inspired by high-profile events. Two such significant events occurred in 1969. The first was a major oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, California, that discharged 100,000 barrels of crude oil into the region’s rich fishing grounds and scenic beaches.¹⁰ Then, in June of that same year, the highly polluted Cuyahoga River caught fire near Cleveland. These events sparked a consciousness—among both the American public and elected officials—of the link between environmental and human well-being; furthermore, they spurred a political movement that led to the passage of landmark environmental legislation, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.

In some ways, it could be said that China is currently undergoing its own environmental awakening, with increased emphasis on “ecological civilization” in recent high-level policies.¹¹ In some regions of the country, air quality has deteriorated to the point that it threatens citizens’ health, which has raised awareness and activism among the population. When it comes to ocean policy, Beijing primarily has viewed ocean management through an economic development lens, but recently ocean sustainability has emerged as a national priority due to the threat that depleted resources will undermine China’s ocean development goals. The shift toward sustainability is particularly notable in the nation’s ocean economic development plans. Since the country’s 11th five-year plan, ocean development has increased in priority—and was explicitly labeled “blue economy” in the most recent plan.¹² Additionally, in these plans and in policy development in general, government leaders increasingly emphasized sustainability components and a recognition that if the economic benefits of marine resources were to continue to grow, management policies would have to be adapted to reflect not just maximum value output in the immediate term but rather a longer-term approach that did not sacrifice future productivity for immediate gains.

Ever since America’s environmental revolution of the 1960s and early 1970s, the bridge between science and policymaking has been strong. Science directly shapes and influences ocean-related regulations, fishing quotas, and permitting decisions; and many environmental and natural resource laws specifically require that policymakers apply the best available science to their decision-making.¹³ However, the current U.S. presidential administration’s skepticism regarding the role of accepted science and scientific data in policymaking is straining that relationship—particularly in the area of climate change and in a few recent natural resource management decisions.¹⁴ Meanwhile, in China, the last two decades of policies designed to spur rapid economic growth at all costs have increasingly used scientific research to project more sustainable growth, with an eye toward protecting resources for future use.

Fisheries management stands out as one area where the two nations have markedly different oversight structures. In the United States, federal water fisheries are managed primarily by a set of eight regional fishery management councils comprised of industry members, state regulators, and other fisheries stakeholders. These bodies recommend fishery management plans that must meet certain legal criteria, such as science-based annual catch limits for all species. Plans then must be approved by NOAA. Meanwhile, in China, at different levels of government, there is significant inconsistency among fishery management priorities. Officials within the national government have become the driving force behind a more sustainable management agenda, whereas provincial governments tend to prioritize shorter-term economic growth over ecological sustainability concerns. Even at the national level, some policies—such as the blanket regulation that closes all fisheries during the summer months as a conservation measure—do not use scientific methodology to fine-tune restrictions or other actions. One example, which represents the difference between the U.S. and Chinese approaches to fisheries management, is that the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a division of NOAA, employs over 2,800 people,¹⁵ while one Chinese participant described the number of officials from his country in charge of distant water fishing as being “in the single digits.”¹⁶

In both nations, resource managers—particularly at the local and regional levels—must deal with the trade-offs between continued employment and profitability, as fishermen have to catch a certain quantity of fish in order to support their businesses but cannot continue to overfish or else the industry will be lost entirely in perpetuity. Both Chinese provincial governments and U.S. state governments grapple with these challenges as they seek to protect their economies both today and for years to come.

Economic activity dependent on or linked to coastal and ocean resources represents a major component of each country’s gross domestic product. Ocean and coastal regions are critical to food security; trade and access to international markets; and energy supply. Yet while other industrial sectors have an array of metrics to track their economic contributions, there is no standard set of measurements for ocean industries. Both the United States and China have, to varying degrees, attempted to define, measure, and grow the “blue economy,” but agreement on the foundational assumptions of what it encompasses remains elusive—not only between the two countries but even within them.

When the idea of the blue economy first emerged in official-track discussions, there was a wide gulf between U.S. and Chinese concepts, so much so that some U.S. government officials initially resisted U.S.-China collaboration in this space. At a macro level, that gulf—and the concerns it triggered on the U.S. side—narrowed when China shifted from a development-only concept to one that incorporated sustainability. In China, that shift is most apparent in its five-year development plans. The nation’s 12th five-year development plan for 2011–2015 largely framed ocean activities exclusively with an economic development lens.¹⁷ In contrast, the 13th five-year plan for 2016–2020 emphasized that strengthening protection of marine resources and the environment was a key priority.¹⁸ To be sure, Beijing is still struggling to balance economic development and environmental protection; but the Blue Future participants recognize that a rhetorical shift is underway in China, as issues of sustainability, environmental impact mitigation, and scientific monitoring are increasingly articulated by national government authorities in the context of marine resources management.

For example, coincident with the third day of the Blue Future conference, the Chinese national government released a document entitled “Vision for Maritime Cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiative,” which articulates a set of principles and aspirations that the nation intends to apply to its international development scheme known as the “21st Century Maritime Silk Road.”¹⁹ In its overarching summary, the document states that the government’s “vision” for the project will be pursued “with a view to … jointly protecting and sustainably utilizing marine resources to achieve harmony between man and the ocean for common development and enhancement of marine welfare.”²⁰

This shift parallels a broader sustainability movement in China’s overall economic development model and opens up new space for international cooperation. If government action follows the path prescribed by the 13th five-year plan, it could represent a significant movement toward incorporating environmental goals into policymaking and development investments.

At the same time, although the general trend may be one of convergence, the United States and China still take notably distinct approaches to their ocean-linked economic sectors. They diverge at multiple points, ranging from the terminology used to describe their ocean economies to the relative level of priority each government affords to delineate and prioritize their respective ocean-linked economies to the strategic objectives scholars and policymakers from each country impute to their respective ocean economy sectors. These differences surfaced quickly during the Blue Future discussion.

Significantly, on the question of what precisely the blue economy should encompass, the U.S. and Chinese participants not only diverged on national lines but also between fellow participants from the same country. While some participants felt that the “blue” moniker implied that all economic activity in the ocean should be included, others felt that it implied a sustainability component and should be used exclusively to measure industries that either benefited from or contributed to healthy ocean and coastal ecosystems. The latter approach would therefore exclude polluting or destructive industries, such as oil and gas development and seabed mining, as well as the shipping industry, which, at least for business purposes, is largely indifferent to the relative health of the ocean on which its vessels travel. One U.S. participant even felt that the definition should be broadened to include all water-related industries—including fresh water management; drinking water processing and distribution; and wastewater treatment—not just those exclusive to the ocean. The group also discussed other options for labeling sectors. In addition to the discussion on the term “blue economy,” participants discussed how to define terms such as “maritime economy,” “coastal economy,” and “ocean economy,” as well as what distinctions might exist between each. Participants did not conclude on definitions for any of the above.

In 2014, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum brought its members together to discuss new partnerships in ocean cooperation. As part of that meeting, members also established a definition of the term “blue economy,” describing it as “an approach to advance sustainable management and conservation of ocean and coastal resources and ecosystems and sustainable development, in order to foster economic growth.”²¹ Based on discussions within the group, this definition would capture some but not all of the term’s nuanced meaning.

These differences are not just rhetorical: Setting clear parameters for such categorization is vital to understanding and ultimately growing the sector’s economic potential. Participants from both countries articulated the importance of thorough economic accounting of ocean-linked economic activities to proper policy development and stressed that bilateral cooperation would be impeded without a clear and common set of metrics and definitions.

China is the world’s biggest fish exporter, and the United States imports more seafood than any other country.²² Thus, the two nations are major stakeholders in global fisheries policy and share a common interest in fishery sustainability over the lo