Keywords

1 Introduction

The global political agenda has expanded its range of topics and actors in order to face the challenges of contemporary society. In this context, topics that were traditionally marginalised within the scope of International Relations have begun to earn greater relevance, in more recent years. Such topics include the environment, climate, and sustainable development.

Discussions on these issues began to appear with greater emphasis and frequency from the 1970s onwards due to a variety of factors (Pott and Estrela 2017), such as (i) international oil crises (1973 and 1979); (ii) publication of ‘The Limits to Growth’ by the Club of Rome (1972); (iii) the eco-development concept, from the Stockholm Conference (1972); (iv) the importance of environmental education, with the Belgrade Charter (1975); and (v) the Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education, between the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (1977).

However, it was at the beginning of the twenty-first century that society witnessed the first major global effort to promote sustainable development. In 2000, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) emerged, totalling 8 goals, 18 targets and 48 indicators. Fifteen years later, the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were launched. Based on the MDGs, the SDGs totalled 17 goals, 169 targets and 232 indicators.

In discussions on a number of themes, seas and ocean are often associated with SDG 14. Notwithstanding, this chapter will criticise this perspective, considering it to be limited and inconsistent with the 2030 Agenda itself, which is intended to be bold, transversal and interconnected. In this sense, we propose a broader view of sea resources from the concept of blue economy; rather than focusing only on marine life, we place the seas and ocean at the centre of the 2030 Agenda, particularly because of its long-term horizon and its cross-cutting nature.

The structure of the chapter will follow that of the qualitative research undertaken, which used a method based on official documents, primary data and a case study. Accordingly, the chapter will first present a review of the initial approach suggested by the United Nations (UN) to frame the goals in boxes, which suggests a certain autonomy and independence between the SDGs. This section will consider the documents published by the UN from a normative perspective. It is our understanding that the normative and institutional character of the goals contribute to the effective internationalisation of these commitments. Following this review, the goals and indicators related to SDG 14 will be presented, alongside a proposal for an alternative analysis of the sea which is complementary to SDG 14. In this section, we will first highlight the interlinkages and trade-offs between the different SDGs and the sea, demonstrating that merely considering SDG 14 amounts to a profound limitation of the analysis. The proposed alternative will be based on the concept of the economy of the sea, thus expanding how the 2030 Agenda deals with the seas and ocean. Finally, the case of Brazil will be briefly evaluated, specifically with regard to the role of the sea in the 2030 Agenda. In this last section, we will consider studies that provide a specific analysis of the Brazilian case, in addition to national initiatives by companies and the State.

Thus, we highlight that the 2030 Agenda represents a new impetus towards cleaner, healthier, and more productive and resilient ocean, including the marine resources within them, consolidating the results of the main summits and conferences held so far (Santos 2019). However, contrary to (inter)national analyses, we propose a new approach to understand the role of the seas and ocean from the perspective of the blue economy, especially since SDG 14 is just one way to achieve and measure their sustainable development.

2 Sustainable Development Beyond Boxes

In 2015, the 2030 Agenda was approved, leading to the establishment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which came into effect as of January 1, 2016. With 17 interconnected goals, 169 targets and 232 associated indicators, the ambitious 2030 Agenda was adopted by the United Nations (UN) to tackle the major challenges of the twenty-first century. The set of goals, targets and indicators focuses on people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnerships (known as ‘the 5Ps’) and can be understood as a more holistic approach in comparison with the MDGs.

The agenda deals with different topics, such as poverty (SDG 1), hunger (SDG 2), good health and well-being (SDG 3), quality education (SDG 4), gender equality (SDG 5), clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), affordable and clean energy (SDG 7), decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9), inequalities (SDG 10), sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11), responsible consumption and production (SDG 12), climate action (SDG 13), life below water (SDG 14), life on land (SDG 15), peace, justice and strong institutions (SDG 16), and partnerships for the goals (SDG 17). It is worth noting that SDG 17 has a particular feature, since it deals with means of implementation (MoI), such as finance, technology, capacity, trade, Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (PCSD), partnership and data (OECD 2015). In parallel, some SDGs also have their own MoI.

Awareness of the risks associated with an interpretation limited to closed boxes around the respective themes led not only to the inclusion of the colour wheel in the SDGs logo but also to broader academic debate on the need to consider and understand the 2030 Agenda in an integrated and combined way. Different actors, be they subnational, national, or supranational, or public or private, need to consider their activities as part of a whole to be achieved, and not a goal in themselves. In the light of this dilemma, there has been growing debate on clustering of the SDGs, in addition to discussion on how to identify and measure their interdependence and mutual influences, whether positive or negative.

In fact, there are different interlinkages and trade-offs between the 17 goals (Lu et al. 2015; Santos and Santos 2017; Allen et al. 2018; Nerini et al. 2018; Scherer et al. 2018; Breuer et al. 2019; Lusseau and Mancini 2019; Moyer and Bohl 2019; Pradhan 2019). Therefore, the success of the 2030 Agenda depends on the joint reach of the different SDGs, precisely because they need to be thought of collectively. In some cases, as will be shown in the following section, the achievement of a specific goal associated with a given SDG can compromise or even hinder the achievement of another goal, which justifies this complex joint approach.

The nexus approach can provide a wider horizontal and vertical policy integration (Lucas et al. 2016), so ‘responsibilities should be defined, accountability systems put in place, and human capacities built accordingly’ (Waage et al. 2015, p. 87). As an example, van Soest et al. (2019) put SDGs 13, 14 and 15 together in an earth system cluster, aiming to identify the synergies and trade-offs in meeting multiple SDGs simultaneously, through Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs). In line with these authors who propose different frameworks for structuring and clustering the SDGs, Niestroy (2016) suggests three concentric circles as a tool to cluster the SDGS based on ‘well-being’ (SDGs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 10), ‘production, distribution and delivery of goods and services’ (SDGs 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12), and ‘natural environment’ (SDGs 13, 14 and 15). As already mentioned, SDGs 16 and 17 are ‘placed outside the circle’ as underlying goals for Means of Implementation and other governance-related targets. (Niestroy 2016, p. 10).

Despite the alternative nature of these approaches, many of them still reproduce the problems they propose to solve and overcome, laying bare the segmented logic of the SDGs. The SDGs are highly influenced by the MDGs, which divide the themes into different goals, targets and indicators; yet it may be limiting to deal with the current challenges of an international system in transition in different areas using the same logic and pre-existing instruments (Santos and Santos 2017). Some of these challenges become even more complex on certain agendas, due to the multi-level governance structure involved. In these cases, it is necessary to consider different layers of hierarchies, putting together trade-offs between domestic and international coordination. This is precisely the case for the seas and ocean.

Oceans cover more than 70% of the planet’s surface and play a crucial role in planetary resilience and the provision of vital ecosystem services. [Given this key role,] the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development puts use and conservation of the ocean and its resources, including coastal areas, into the wider sustainable development context for the first time (Schmidt et al. 2017, p. 177).

The main objective of this section was, therefore, to highlight the specialist literature, briefly presenting the theoretical discussion around limitations to a structural way of considering the 2030 Agenda, particularly from its 17 SDGs. In the next section, we analyse the 2030 Agenda with specific focus on the seas, both because these are an important environment for certain economic activities in the future and also because they cover a wide range of sectors and actors who need to interact, both nationally and internationally, to achieve the goals and targets proposed by the 2030 Agenda in an integrated and coherent way. This discussion on a global scale is essential because, although ‘the protection of ocean areas under national jurisdiction is increasing, (…) more than 60 per cent of oceans are still beyond national jurisdiction, and only about 1 per cent of the area is covered’ (UN 2019, p. 28).

3 The Sea and the SDGs

In the 1980s a broader debate began to emerge on the need to structure global governance of the seas and ocean, especially in the light of the challenges that were arising at that time (Rothwell and VanderZwaag 2006; Ryan 2015). Figure 1 presents a timeline highlighting the main milestones related with this area, taking into account events at UN level.

Fig. 1
A timeline of main sea-related milestones. Some of the milestones are as follows. L O S Convention, 1982. Agenda 21, 1992. U N Fish Stocks Agreement, 1995. Creation of U N-Oceans, 2003. The Ocean Conference, 2017. The Ocean Conference, 2020.

Main sea-related milestones on the global agenda. Source: Own elaboration; LOS Law of the Sea, ACC SOCA Areas of the Administrative Committee on Coordination – subcommittee on Oceans and Coastal Areas, BPOA Barbados Programme of Action, UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, SAMOA SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action, SIDS Small Island Developing States, RISE UP a blue call to action, COP Conference of Parties

Full size image

Considering the context of the SDGs, the analysis of this section will focus on the post-2030 Agenda period (after 2015). As stated in the previous section, the 2030 Agenda can be interpreted as a kind of extension and updating of the MDGs, which already considered marine resources, even if only marginally. In fact, MDG 7 was about ensuring environmental sustainability, focusing mainly on life on land, although target 7.b sought to protect terrestrial and marine ecosystems, addressing, for example, protected coastal areas and overexploitation of fish (UN 2015; Santos 2019). Most likely as a consequence of how this theme was addressed within the scope of the MDGs, the 2030 Agenda would again treat water resources in a limited and biased manner.

To understand this limitation, this section will be divided into two subsections to facilitate an understanding of the methodological approach of this chapter. In the first sub-section, we will analyse the relevance of the seas from the perspective traditionally followed in relation to the 2030 Agenda, i.e. from the perspective of SDG 14. On the other hand, the second sub-section, although it fits within the framework of the SDGs (precisely because it is the current long-term global proposal), is not limited to SDG 14 or simply its interlinkages and trade-offs.

3.1 Stuck Inside the Box

As presented in the previous section, the 2030 Agenda has 17 SDGs, two of which (SDG 6 and SDG 14) deal directly with the ‘water’ natural resource. SDG 6 seeks to ensure the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all (Essex et al. 2020). However, when it comes to marine resources and, therefore, seas and ocean, different scientific publications, national reports and documents from international organisations focus exclusively on SDG 14 (UN 2016).

In summary, SDG 14 addresses marine pollution (14.1), healthy ocean (restoration of ecosystems) (14.2), ocean acidification (14.3), sustainable fishing (overfishing) (14.4), marine protected areas (14.5), fisheries subsidies (14.6), economic benefits for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs) (14.7), knowledge and technology (14a), small scale fishers (14b), and development and implementation of law (14c). SDG 14’s focus on the biological and environmental perspective is, thus, quite evident, while also considering the asymmetry between different states in the international system with specific reference to SIDS and LDCs.

As indicated above, most works on the relevance of the seas and ocean in the 2030 Agenda tend to focus exclusively on SDG 14. They only consider the seas and ocean as an environment that can be polluted and, therefore, that must be preserved. The social and economic view associated with activities that depend directly on the seas and ocean is discredited, appearing only marginally in goals 14.4, 14.6 and 14.b (which deal with fishing, including artisanal activity) and 14.7 (which deals with economic benefits for SIDS and LDCs).

As regards the SDG clustering proposal presented in the previous section, van Soest et al. (2019) show little interaction between SDG 14 and the other SDGs, the closest interaction being with SDG 13 (climate change). Le Blanc (2015) stresses the close relationship between SDG 14 and SDG 8 (growth and employment) and SDG 12 (sustainable consumption and production), concluding that the SDGs are completer and more interconnected than the MDGs. The OECD (2015) highlights the close relationship between SDG 14 and the environment dimension of the 2030 Agenda, although some of its targets touch the economic (14.1, 14.3, 14.4, 14.5, 14.6 and 14.7) and social (14.3, 14.6 and 14.7) dimensions.

The SDSN (2015) proposes three monitoring levels for SDG14, namely national, global and thematic. Among the themes to be considered, its close relationship with SDGs 2, 6, 12, 13 and 15 is stressed, especially when it comes to pollution, protection, resilience, ocean acidification, overfishing, sustainable management, biodiversity loss, illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing (at the national level), nutrition, scientific cooperation, economic contribution, and ocean health. The Council’s 2017 report proposes an analysis beyond trade-offs and synergies through the seven-point scale, suggesting some extra relations between SDG 14 and the other SDGs not aforementioned—in line with Santos (2019). Table 1 shows the co-benefits between SDG 14 targets and other SDGs based on a colour scale.

Table 1 Co-benefits between SDG 14 targets and other SDGs (colour scale)
Full size table

Therefore, SDG 14 has a closer relationship through co-benefits with SDGs 1, 2, 11, 13 and 15. In practice, there is a strong trade-off relationship with SDG 2 (OECD 2015) and SDG 11, which can eventually become synergies (Kroll et al. 2019) from the appropriate stimuli if mutual policies and strategies are adopted. These interlinkages and trade-offs are quite limited, however, because, despite SDG 14’s connection with urgent global themes, it effectively deals only with marine life.

However, as the political framework that the SDGs provide does not reflect the full picture and as some areas and goals are rather weakly connected (in particular the SDGs 14 Oceans […]), attempts towards policy integration will require the inclusion of studies on biophysical, social and economic systems (Niestroy 2016, p. 12).

Although this may not be the best method for considering the relevance of seas and ocean, even an analysis limited to SDG 14 shows that there are some co-benefits to achieving its targets. In a similar way to SDGs 11, 13, 16, and 17, SDG 14 also has trade-offs and non-associations with other SDGs in the future. Therefore, consideration of seas and ocean in the context of the 2030 Agenda requires a change of perspective, mainly because of the cross-cutting nature of this theme. This will be the main focus of the following subsection.

3.2 Released Outside the Box

Table 1 shows the targets and indicators for SDG 14, which are often used to highlight the relevance of the seas in the context of the 2030 Agenda. Although these targets have interlinkages and trade-offs, we argue that they provide a limited understanding of the real relevance of the seas with regard to the sustainable development agenda. Hence, we propose that the integrative and interdisciplinary perspective of the blue economy should be used, since it highlights the different activities and economic sectors that use the seas and ocean.

Specific to each country, the concept of economy of the sea is limited to activities directly and indirectly related to the seas (Carvalho 2018) and can be understood as a strategic and analytical policy of regional development capable of contributing to the formulation of public policies (Santos and Carvalho 2020). Because blue economy considers a greater diversity of sectors and actors involved in activities directly (and indirectly) related to the use of the seas, this perspective allows the sea to be more easily and appropriately explored, managed, and protected (Santos 2019). Thus, we propose a broader and more comprehensive analysis of the seas with regard to the 2030 Agenda from the perspective of the blue economy. Accordingly, we may highlight several initiatives that have taken place since 2015 (as shown in Fig. 1), including:

  • 2017: Announcement of the Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030) and The Ocean Conference (New York, United States);

  • 2018: Sustainable Blue Economy Conference (Nairobi, Kenya);

  • 2019: COP 25, ‘Blue COP’ (Madrid, Spain); and

  • 2020: “RISE UP – a blue call to action”—officially launched in February, at the preparatory meeting for the UN Ocean Conference.

The Ocean Conference 2020 was scheduled to take place in Lisbon (Portugal) between 2 and 6 June 2020. However, according to their official website note published on 14 April 2020:

In light of the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and growing public health concerns, the 2020 United Nations Ocean Conference (…) has been postponed per decision 74/548 adopted by the General Assembly on Monday, 13 April 2020 at 3:01 p.m. Co-hosts of the Conference Kenya and Portugal in consultation with the General Assembly will decide on possible future dates for the Conference, including timelines for the preparatory process.

Thus, 2021 and 2022 seem to be favourable years for expansion and deepening of the debate on the seas and ocean in the 2030 Agenda, both due to the start of the Ocean Decade (2021–2030), and to the postponement of the Ocean Conference (2020). There is a need for this paradigm shift, still within the era of the 2030 Agenda, to ensure that the complexity of sectors related to the seas and ocean is properly addressed in terms of policy and governance design.

Among the sectors covered by the ocean economy, the following stand out: defence and (inter)national security; fishing and aquaculture; offshore energies; offshore mineral resources; transport, logistics and maritime infrastructure; shipbuilding and repair; tourism, sport and leisure; environment and climate (Santos 2019). These sectors, with their related national and geopolitical impacts, contemplate much more than just ‘marine life’, which is the focus of SDG 14. That is precisely why this chapter proposes an ‘outside-the-box’ approach when thinking of the seas, SDG 14 being the ‘box’ that limits society’s broader perception of the sea in the 2030 Agenda. We are not advocating that the SDG approach is inadequate or inappropriate, or something different from what the world has been doing, but by associating the seas only with SDG 14, a biological bias is created, simplifying their intersectoral nature.

Given this context, we propose a perspective that considers the relevance of the seas from the perspective of the blue economy, not limited to SDG 14 but encompassing all the SDGs that have a relationship with socioeconomic activities related to the seas and ocean. Therefore, Table 2 presents other sea-related SDGs, and their targets and issues, beyond SDG 14 itself, based on the sectors related to the blue economy presented above and using key sentences from the 2030 Agenda itself.

Table 2 Other sea-related SDGs beyond SDG 14, and their targets and issues
Full size table

As can be seen from the methodological proposal of this chapter, seas and ocean cover a much broader and more transversal spectrum in the 2030 Agenda. Unlike Table 1 and the discussion of interlinkages and trade-offs presented in the previous section, which were limited to identifying the relevance from the perspective of the SDG 14 targets, Table 2 demonstrates how different targets of sea-related SDGs have an impact on the blue economy, which should not be measured only from SDG 14. In the light of the proposed methodological paradigm, the impact of SDGs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9. 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 on sea and ocean activities is evident. It is also worth noting that some of these SDGs suggest their own means of implementation (MoI).

Among the main activities and sectors involved, the following may be highlighted: socioeconomic development; fishing; research, development and innovation (RD & I); maritime infrastructure; biodiversity and sustainability; and public policies through partnerships with private sectors, as well as through regional and international cooperation. However, although SDGs 4 and 5 were not considered in the analysis, they are also related to the blue economy, for example, through the following targets:

  • 4.4 ‘increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship’;

  • 4.5 ‘eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education’;

  • 4.7 ‘ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development’; and

  • 5.c ‘Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls at all levels.’

In this way, it is possible to identify relationships with education, due to the profile of workers in certain maritime activities, and gender, in fishing and offshore activities, for example. Thus, there is a clear interface between all the SDGs in the 2030 Agenda and activities related to the blue economy, even though, in most cases, these relationships are not even mentioned. This is the case of the relationship with SDGs 7 and 17; in the first case, although it has already been proven that there is enormous potential for sea energies in certain regions (waves, ocean currents, tidal and OTEC, for example), these continue to be marginalised with regard to the current energy transition; in the case of SDG 17, although the goal is to ‘strengthen the means of implementation’, paradoxically this is ignored in most analyses.

4 Is Brazil in or Outside the Box?

Following on from the literature review and the methodological proposal based on the perspective of the blue economy, this section will briefly analyse the case of Brazil. This analysis makes perfect sense, given that almost 20% of the country’s population, production, and formal jobs are related to the ocean economy (Carvalho 2018). In addition, Brazil’s coastline is 8698 km long and covers an area of approximately 514,000 km2, 324,000 km2 of which correspond to the territory of coastal municipalities, comprising 19 of the 36 Brazilian metropolitan regions on the coast.

In its Voluntary National Review, which aims to provide information about the process of preparing Brazil for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, the country highlights national governance, the need to adapt some targets and the consequent definition of national indicators (Brazil 2017). The Review states that 85.8% of the targets and 78.4% of the SDG indicators were related to the Pluriannual Plan (PPA, Portuguese acronym) 2016–2019, which is the main medium-term planning tool for government actions. Regarding the seas and ocean, it presents the National Policy for the Resources of the Sea (PNRM, Portuguese acronym) and the National Coastal Management Plan (PNGC, Portuguese acronym), as well as their interface with the National Plan for Adaptation to Climate Change (PNA, Portuguese acronym), with the Program for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, and with the Fisheries and Aquaculture Program. This shows and confirms that the Brazilian focus given to the seas and ocean is limited to the SDG 14 approach, which has been criticised in this article.

The country established the National Commission for the Sustainable Development Goals, responsible for advancing the process of locating the targets and indicators of the SDGs, which benefits from the participation of civil society, governments and the presidency, as well as the permanent advice of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE, Portuguese acronym) and the Institute for Applied Economic Research (IPEA, Portuguese acronym). Considering SDG 14, the Brazilian adequacy proposal is that, of the 10 targets, all (100%) apply to the country, 3 (30%) have already been adapted to the national reality, 7 (70%) are still being implemented and no target was created (Viana 2017). According to the ODS Brazil Platform, updated on April 1, 2020, only 1 indicator has been produced (14.5.1), 6 are under analysis/construction (14.2.1, 14.6.1, 14.7.1, 14.a.1, 14.b.1 and 14.c.1), and 3 are without data (14.1.1, 14.3.1 and 14.4.1).

In addition, according to the World Resource Institute (WRI), there are no linkages between the Brazilian Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and SDG 14. On the other hand, it is worth noting that in South America, other countries present this relationship between NDCs and SDGs, including Ecuador (2 targets linked), Peru (1), Suriname (1), Uruguay (1) and Venezuela (1). Particularly addressing the cross-impact of prioritised global targets and their interactions in the Brazilian context, Oliveira et al. (2019) provide an empirical method, based on current perceptions of experts about the implementation of the SDG framework at the national level. They show that among the ‘determinant targets’ that play a key role in the planning and implementation of the 2030 Agenda in Brazil, none comes from SDG 14.

It is, then, evident that the Brazilian case reproduces the analyses and policies carried out abroad. Following the ‘recipe’, the analyses have considered only the impact of a certain SDG target on the SDG 14 goals and, at most, vice versa. However, as demonstrated, this proposal limits the political sphere of action of actors nationally and globally, as the objectives are limited (and framed) by targets, instead of being considered by sector (which would require a more transversal perspective – which, paradoxically, is exactly the 2030 Agenda proposal).

5 Conclusions

Given its particular nature, including from a legal, political and economic point of view, the relevance of the seas (and ocean) must be understood well beyond SDG 14. Even limited inside its box, it is clear that tackling SDG 14 targets is neither easy nor trivial, which we do not intend to suggest through our broader and bolder proposal. SDG 14 per se will require robust international cooperation and coordination to protect the ocean and preserve fish and other marine resources. This will require a reformulation of the current governance of the ocean and fisheries, which is often implemented in a disjointed manner by different agencies.

In the perspective inside the SDG 14 box, even the contributions that consider its interlinkages and trade-offs point to little relationship between SDG 14 and the other goals of the agenda, which does not appear to be a reasonable argument given the transversality and capillarity of this sea agenda. In fact, there are too many issues at stake, so there is no one-size-fits-all perspective to be advocated. Our proposal, therefore, seeks to highlight the relevance that seas and ocean have for coastal States, whose activities associated with the ocean economy are of great relevance for the economy as a whole. This was precisely the reason for analysing the case of Brazil.

Due to the cross-cutting agenda and the multi-level governance structure involved, consideration of the seas in the era of the 2030 Agenda requires a paradigm shift in the way concepts are designed and policies implemented. Hence, given that a significant share of the ocean is still beyond national jurisdiction, there is no place for state-centric-based policies, and better and wider regional integration and international cooperation is required. The methodological proposal of this chapter not only considers the peculiar nature of this agenda, but reinforces the broader, circular, transversal and interdisciplinary perspective of the 2030 Agenda.

Taking advantage of the fact that 2021 and 2022 are paradigmatic years for the global agenda of seas and ocean, due both to the Ocean Decade (2021–2030) and to the Ocean Conference, scheduled to take place in 2020 but postponed until 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the proposal in question could not come at a more opportune time. As seen in the Brazilian case, the country is still in the initial stage of implementing the agenda, having produced only 1 of the 10 indicators of SDG 14, which is not even related to the Brazilian NDC. Therefore, the country is still in time to change the perspective for the sea agenda, using the logic of the SDGs, albeit in a more integrated and interdisciplinary way, based on the concept of the blue economy.