While our knowledge of the ocean deepens and sustainable solutions to pressures undermining ocean health are within reach, measurable progress remains limited, falling far short of the urgent, systemic action needed to match the scale and pace of ocean challenges. Fragmented governance accelerates these degradations by failing to address the stressors that put marine ecosystems at risk and jeopardise the lives of the many, particularly coastal communities, who rely on the ocean for food, livelihoods and well-being. To explore what must change to ensure equitable ocean governance and science-based ocean solutions, we spoke with two ocean experts:
Currently, ocean governance is heavily fragmented across multilateral treaties, nations, sectors and even within single government departments. Fisheries, energy and environmental departments operate in silos, each managing different aspects of the ocean without coordination, communication or shared vision. One may oversee marine protected areas, another licenses offshore oil exploration, while a third sets fisheries quotas. This structural fragmentation fails to reflect the interconnectedness of the ocean and ignores the realities of coastal communities whose lives cut across these human-made boundaries. For instance, in South Africa, fragmented governance often leads to overlapping or conflicting legal frameworks, leaving small-scale fishers confused, preventing them from accessing the ocean for food or livelihoods, and resulting in wrongful arrests.
According to Dr. Mia Strand, this disconnect is not accidental. It reflects historical legacies and institutional cultures, such as colonial governance frameworks, that continue to shape marine policy today. She warns that even progressive initiatives like marine spatial planning and the 30×30 conservation target risk reinforcing exclusionary models unless they are fundamentally reimagined to better recognise diverse knowledge systems and centre communities who are meant to benefit from these decisions.
According to Strand, marine conservation is too often framed as protecting ecosystems from local communities rather than with them. This approach disregards their deep knowledge and long-standing role as ocean custodians, ultimately undermining the very goals of marine conservation and social justice. The disconnect between ocean governance and the lived experiences of the communities who depend on the ocean for their survival leads to decision-making that risks being not only ineffective but also actively harmful.
Policies should not prohibit communities from benefiting from natural resources, but rather create frameworks that ensure sustainable, respectful and mutually beneficial interactions.
What does meaningful transformation of ocean governance look like? Dr. Frank Mirobo explains that integrated ocean governance means involving everyone affected by or benefiting from the ocean. This includes policy-makers, researchers, coastal communities, fishers, maritime industries, polluters, and even those indirectly connected to the ocean. For Strand, the shift must go beyond consultation to co-governance, drawing a key distinction between co-management – participating in the implementation process – and co-governance – sharing strategic decision-making and rights.
Importantly, inclusive ocean governance is not merely about inserting communities into existing frameworks. Instead, they need to be redesigned from the ground up. That entails creating participatory processes, centring Indigenous and local knowledge systems, and supporting governance mechanisms that are ecologically sound and socially just. Strand also emphasises that it is essential to meet people where they are, both literally and figuratively. This involves adapting to the schedules and priorities of non-academic partners, compensating individuals fairly for their time, and ensuring transparency and flexibility throughout the co-production process.
It matters who facilitates the co-production process. Facilitators should ideally have experience with conflict resolution and the ability to hold space for multiple perspectives.
But current systems often work against this. A ‘fortress conservation’ mindset still persists – treating marine conservation as a matter of policing rather than partnership. Marine managers, for instance, are sometimes evaluated on the size of protected areas and the number of arrests. Performance indicators rarely reward co-production, and in some cases, they are even reprimanded for doing too much stakeholder engagement, Strand points out. She underscores that indicators for dialogue and participation do exist, however, they are not often recognised in monitoring and evaluation frameworks.
Real-world cases show that co-production is not only just but also more effective. For instance, Indigenous and local communities along South Africa’s Eastern Cape “Wild Coast” successfully challenged Shell’s proposed offshore seismic surveys – the first phase in the offshore oil and natural gas exploration – in court. The Makhanda High Court found that Shell had failed to meaningfully consult affected communities, many of whom hold customary fishing rights and maintain deep spiritual and cultural ties to the ocean. Instead, Shell relied on a flawed, top-down consultation process that used inaccessible communication channels and treated traditional monarchs as sole representatives, marginalising local voices. Strand notes that had the government engaged in meaningful engagement and collaboration with local communities from the beginning, they might have avoided a major legal defeat and social backlash.
Strand shares that collaboration and engagement with communities prior to the design and implementation of marine protected areas should also be the norm, and if this has not been the case then fishers, coastal communities, conservation managers and local authorities should at least come together to review existing legislation and management plans, and discuss opportunities to re-zone restricted and controlled areas. She emphasises that starting from shared goals, not conflicts, steers the conversation toward the question of how to move forward together.
Opportunities for participation must be tailored to local contexts and grounded in inclusive approaches that acknowledge the historical factors shaping who has access to the ocean. – Mia Strand
Mirobo shares an example from his sea turtle conservation work in Tanzania, where initial resistance to ending turtle consumption was overcome through consistent community engagement. His team conducted awareness campaigns highlighting turtles’ ecological importance, population decline, and health risks from consuming their meat. Gradually, communities, especially young people, began protecting nesting sites and advocating for conservation. This grassroots shift, supported by scientists and local leaders, eventually led to new regulations. Mirobo emphasises that the key was building trust through dialogue, not prescribing actions but explaining why conservation matters for their health, environment, and economy.
Once people understood how everything was interconnected – from sea turtles to their own health and livelihoods – they began to take ownership. That deeper understanding is what truly empowered them to act. – Frank Mirobo
At UNOC-3, it is urgent to call for a structural shift in ocean governance – one that brings together diverse knowledge systems and rewards trust-building, dialogue engagement and shared decision-making. Only through this approach can truly inclusive and equitable ocean governance be achieved at all levels.
Photograph by Guillaume Marques from Unsplash
Read more about Science without borders: International collaboration for the next generation of researchers 
Read more about Steering Group appointed to guide the ISC Social Science Matters Programme 
Read more about Get involved in the 5th International Polar Year 
