An Ocean Declaration for equitable governance to guide observation

The Declaration and other calls for more ocean observation focus on increasing data collection with little attention to necessary changes in decision-making and policy structures that guide such efforts^1,8. Data collection should follow the establishment of robust data governance and decision-making infrastructure that avoid dominance from a narrow and powerful minority, because ocean observation and science will be accountable to those who set the scientific agenda^1,8. Such governance, if set up proactively and equitably, can ensure that the kinds of information collected will best support efforts to address threats from global ocean and atmospheric change. For instance, building a global monitoring system without addressing these governance system concerns will carry the risk that newly built observation systems will amplify existing political power disparities whereby the majority of the world (where the ocean is “under-observed”) will be subject to the interests and insights of a powerful minority of developed nations. Such a system will continue to ignore, exclude and silence the creativity and leadership of most of the world that is confronting and adapting to the most severe impacts of climate change.

Intentional planning and implementation of procedural justice practices are paramount to ensuring that the needs and interests of coastal communities are to the focus of research initiatives, absent undue influence by a powerful minority of Global North actors¹. The current signatories of the Declaration – largely from the Global North and led by technology companies and philanthropic organizations – cannot represent the diverse priorities of communities, particularly those presently bearing disproportionate climate burden. For instance, we question the Declaration calls for global monitoring of ocean carbon flux; instead, coastal communities would benefit from information and resources to support active adaptation to local impacts⁷. Without taking a critical approach that centers equity and justice in oceans and coastal communities – an approach that accounts for both local context and historic patterns of inequity due to processes of extractive colonialism, cultural imperialism, and even philanthropic and development efforts – externally-driven climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies will likely fail to bring about meaningful action^1,8,9.

Furthermore, while the Declaration recognizes the role of local and Indigenous knowledge, it does so in ways that reify historic patterns of colonial extraction and dominant hierarchies of knowledge and power. By differentiating between “accelerated scientific research and technology” and Indigenous knowledge as “traditional,” the Declaration fails to recognize the continuity of Indigenous knowledge and innovation, relegated to something of the past rather than actively shaping the future^10,11. At the same time, the Declaration advocates for a global “research community” to prioritize research with Indigenous people helping to fill in data and knowledge gaps – an approach to partnership heavily criticized by Indigenous scholars^11,12. The Declaration presumes that local and Indigenous peoples and knowledge systems serve priorities imposed on them, continuing an exploitative and extractive history and, paradoxically, diminishing the very perspectives the Declaration purports to value. We urge future ocean data calls to emphasize local community and Indigenous-led research and engage local communities and Indigenous peoples as active partners in knowledge production, with layered expertise both within and outside of the scientific sphere.

We agree with the Declaration’s call towards more transparency in ocean data. Transparency is important for accountability and ensuring that science is robust, but transparency in data collection cannot counteract financial and political power that guides scientific questions and priorities and the interests it serves^1,13. Much of the science needed to support local coastal communities and Indigenous peoples may not align with the best interests of technology companies, and it will be important for science to inform interventions that aid communities over corporations.

We applaud the calls from the Declaration and similar efforts to increase capacity within developing nations to implement data collection and contribute to nationally determined contributions; but we encourage an extension of capacity building to make space for political leadership of coastal communities and Indigenous people through lessons from decolonial, anti-racist and feminist movements^14,15,16. In particular, while the Declaration makes reference to the need for data collection to address issues related to understanding carbon flux with the oceans in order to help achieve net-negative emissions, many carbon capture and storage interventions face uncertainties and require more research to investigate their effectiveness, feasibility, and in some cases, side-effects^17,18. Faith in technology and more data alone do not attend to the social, political, and economic context from which these problems have emerged and been exacerbated¹⁹. Some data collected may be useful towards global sustainability initiatives, especially where they are used to evaluate policy and intervention successes and failures. However, when data is decontextualized from relevant sociopolitical dimensions, they can and often do reflect and reify dominant systems and groups^1,20. In some cases, more reliance on technology and data can be used to undermine the roles of democratic and local knowledge systems, and can even increase risks as greater responsibility is placed on systems that may not be as accurate or as safe as we expect them to be^19,21.

Leadership from local coastal communities and Indigenous people is central to setting research priorities, and carrying out research is important beyond ensuring the science that is done is locally relevant^22,23. Setting out data governance systems built on equity and justice to guide science (rather than carry out science guided externally) would make for legitimate and credible knowledge-generating processes. However, the research community should not expect trust and sharing to occur until historical harms are sincerely recognized, addressed, and overcome. In fact, scientific programs that neglect local input risk being extractive and benefitting the researcher with minimal benefits to the community, leading to hesitance or denial to contribute local and Indigenous knowledge^{22,23,24,25,26}. More importantly, this research risks perpetuating knowledge hierarchies that are accountable to academic prestige systems while discounting local and Indigenous knowledge systems which help people survive^{22,23,24,25,26,27}. We urge future calls for ocean observation to support and follow local coastal communities and Indigenous-led efforts to decolonize methodologies and make clear commitments to elevate local community and Indigenous forms of knowledge, work alongside local community and Indigenous partners at all stages of research, and to respect site-specific protocols, values, and boundaries²⁵.

To support a more rapid uptake of data governance responsive to local and Indigenous concerns, it is important to follow documented examples. Some researchers have developed guidance for incorporating local community and Indigenous priorities and decision-making into data collection (including specifically for ocean data²⁸). Examples of data collection programs that utilize technology and gather data relevant to local concerns and are inclusive of Indigenous knowledge are also valuable as models, such as the SmartICE program in Northern Canada to augment Inuit Knowledge for safe sea-ice travel²⁹. However, many valuable models will also be found outside academic contexts, partly because current scientific institutions often celebrate initiatives that benefit researchers over local efforts that render local benefits²⁷.

As we are mostly members of the academic institutions of the Global North, we do not claim to represent the voices of historically oppressed peoples and other vulnerable communities. However, we urge that transformative change towards ocean sustainability and equity requires a change in who sets the agenda in the first place. We recognize that many organizations are striving to address the structural inequities that reinforce power asymmetries between states, communities, and business. However, we urge those engaged in setting global science agendas and calls for actions that local coastal communities and Indigenous peoples must have a leading role through increased political representation, knowledge contribution, recognition of legal rights and access, and respect for cultural identities and individual dignity.