Introduction
The importance of the oceans cannot be underestimated; thus, effective
ocean governance is imperative. The oceans are global common-pool
resources managed under national jurisdictions (e.g. territorial waters)
and by different sectoral and regional organisations (e.g. Regional
Fisheries Organisations, Regional Fisheries Management Organization,
International Maritime Organization, the International Seabed
Authority). Oceans are governed by numerous actors, formal and informal
institutions, and nation-states, for a variety of often conflicting
services and uses. Inconsistencies in sectoral approaches, conflicts
between actors, jurisdictions with overlapping mandates, and poor
communication among governance institutions have undermined the
effectiveness of ocean governance (Balgos et al 2015, Stephenson et al
2019). Addressing these challenges is integral to developing effective
governance for marine ecosystem sustainability (Alexander and Haward
2019).
While governance encompasses many elements, in this paper we focus on
the processes that operate within and between states, civil society and
local communities, and the market, including industry (Jentoft and
Chuenpagdee 2009; Lemos and Agrawal 2006, Vince and Haward 2019). These
processes steer decision-making and human interactions with the ocean in
response to social, ecological, political or economic change and
through, for example,
institutional arrangements and legal and policy frameworks. However,
governance is more than formal institutions and laws.
It encompasses actors (for example
states, non-state actors – including businesses – and international
organisations) and how they influence and implement the rules that
mediate human interactions with resources (McGinnis 2011, see also Young
1991).
The complexity of marine socio-ecological systems has often led to ocean
governance arrangements in which policies can lack effectiveness
(Underdal, 2002; Willock and Lack 2006; Gjerde et al. 2008; Haward and
Vince 2008; Blanchard 2017) and coherence (Nilsson et al 2012).
International treaties, regional agreements and national policies often
comprise complex design, development and implementation, that reflect
the desire to move towards specific objectives. To improve oceans
governance, the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development agreement (Chapter 17, Agenda 21) and the 2002 World Summit
on Sustainable Development (Vandeweerd et al. 2006) encouraged states to
develop and implement integrated ocean and coastal policy approaches.
However, ad hoc, disjointed management regimes have resulted in poor
compliance among member states (Ban et al. 2014) and poor outcomes, such
as overfishing (Hobday et al. 2011) and increasing marine pollution
(Vince and Hardesty 2018). This has had negative impacts on the marine
ecosystem, markets and society (Rogers at al. 2016).
We use the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as an
underlying framework to identify three major risks for marine ecosystems
to frame the discussion of future ocean governance. The SDGs comprise of
17 goals which seek to achieve sustainable development across social,
economic, and ecological sectors. These goals are highly interlinked
with each other (Singh et al. 2017) and the progress towards these goals
will likely impact the ocean. Derived from the SDGs we have summarized
three major risks for the ocean where future governance is pivotal for
change. These risks are:
1) the impacts of the overexploitation of marine resources e.g.
overfishing (SDG12, SDG14, SDG16);
2) inequitable distribution of access to and benefits from marine
ecosystem services e.g. technology transfer and gender inequalities
(SDG1, SDG8, SDG10, SDG16) (discussed further in Alexander et al, in
prep); and
3) inadequate or inappropriate adaptation to changing ocean conditions
e.g. ocean warming and acidification and sea level rise (SDG1, SDG13,
SDG11, SDG16).
Governance has frequently focused on addressing such risks through legal
and institutional architecture (Young 2010). There is, however,
increasing value in developing an understanding of the impact of
interplay and interaction between actors and institutions as well as
within these institutions (Beunen et al. 2017; Beunen and Patterson
2016; Scobie 2016). As the climate changes and the oceans face
increasing degradation and sustainability challenges, there is a renewed
urgency to reform governance structures and systems to address current
and emerging problems (Biermann et al. 2010, 2012).
We use these three priority risks for marine ecosystems to frame our
discussion on how improved ocean governance may mitigate such risks and
offer specific and tangible examples of pathways of change. As such we
look at addressing these risks through the lens of agency. Agency is
defined as the capacity of an actor to make decisions and to act upon
them, and thus to influence government and institutions’ behaviours
(Hall 2010; Bloomfield 2017; Lawrence et al. 2009). Institutions are
shaped by the individuals who work within them; addressing agency helps
to analyze how institutions are created, how they interact, and how they
adapt to changing needs and expectations. By recognising agency as a
driver of governance, we can begin to identify interactions between
actors that foster or hinder the development of norms and related
government systems (Burch et al. 2019) and thus help explain the
dynamics of interplay. We use
agency as it provides a critical lens that centres on actors within
institutions as key to changes ( positive or negative) and thus is a key
concept in identifying pathways of change. Agency moves away from a
simple focus on state and organisational action.
The aim of this paper is to envision ocean governance for a more
sustainable future by 2030, which is the end of the United Nations
Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development, and to propose
tangible actions towards such a vision. To address this aim, we identify
five drivers (Section 2) shaping ocean governance which will play a key
role in the immediate future (Nash et al. 2020). Based on these drivers,
we define the narratives of two alternative futures (‘business as usual’
and an aspirational, more sustainable but technically achievable 2030)
(Section 3). These futures are based on the perception and opinions of
the authors and we acknowledge that some topics which others might
consider as important have not been included. We also identify actions
that may facilitate change towards a more sustainable future (Section
4). While not addressed in this paper we acknowledge that the
disruptions of 2020, in particular the COVID-19 pandemic, are currently
causing major changes to economies and socioecological systems at the
global scale. These changes will likely change future trajectories as
the COVID-19 pandemic has extensive impacts on for example small-scale
and community fisheries (Bennett et al. 2020). Thus, the business as
usual scenario we describe is based on evidence from the recent past
before the pandemic and assumes a general return to this trajectory in
the next few years. We note that current disruptions to the global
ocean, environment and society because of COVID-19 may influence the
described actions and indeed present a platform for change and an
opportunity to ‘reset’ trajectories in the coming decade (as discussed
in Pecl et al. In review, this issue). The more sustainable future
presented here is one option for such a shift.
Drivers of change
We identified five key drivers that influence current ocean governance
and can steer the direction of governance within the next decade. These
drivers are based on the perceptions and experience of the authors and
had been identified in numerous workshops through an established
iterative method (see Nash et al. 2020 for more details on this
methodology). We acknowledge that the opinion regarding these drivers
might differ among different scholars. The first driver is formal
rules and institutions (Ostrom 1990). Rules (including norms and
regulations) created by formal governance institutions play a role in
steering actors’ behaviour and the institutional arrangement for the
implementation of effective management, which includes compliance and
enforcement. The second driver isevidence and knowledge-based decision-making (Cash et al. 2003)
as t he sharing of knowledge, brokering between scientific and
policy institutions and the acknowledgement of traditional knowledge are
important for decision-making processes. The third driver islegitimacy of decision-making institutions (Clark et al. 2011).
Public’s trust is important in decision-making processes and relative
outcomes and whether actors judge these processes and outcomes as fair
and adequate. The greater the level of legitimacy, the more likely
actors will comply with its rules without the need for enforcement
actions (Tyler 1990; Franck 1990). The fourth driver isstakeholder engagement and participation (Cash et al.
2003). To facilitate cooperation at all levels of human interaction with
the oceans, all relevant stakeholders need to be included in the
governance processes. The last driver is empowering communities(Ostrom 1990). Collective actions, as well as social licence for human
use of the ocean, benefits the different actors and the various scales
at which they operate. Table 1 centres on the three risks in relation to
these five key drivers and provides examples of each promoting or
undermining ocean governance.
Insert Table 1
3 . Narratives of alternative futures