Ocean governance is the conduct of the policy, actions and affairs regarding the world's oceans. Within governance, it incorporates the influence of non-state actors, i.e. stakeholders, NGOs and so forth, therefore the state is not the only acting power in policy making. However, ocean governance is complex because much of the ocean is a commons that is not 'owned' by any single person or nation/state. There is a belief more strongly in the US than other countries that the "invisible hand" is the best method to determine ocean governance factors. These include factors such as what resources we consume, what price we should pay for them, and how we should use them. The underlying reasoning behind this is the market has to have the desire in order to promote environmental protection, however this is rarely the case. This term is referred to as a market failure. Market failures and government failures are the leading causes of ocean governance complications. As a result, humankind has tended to overexploit marine resources, by treating them as shared resources while not taking equal and collective responsibility in caring for them.Boesch, D.F. (1999) The role of science in ocean governance. Ecological Economics, 31, pp. 189–198.
Effective ocean governance requires robust international agreements.DeSombre, E.R. (2006) Global Environmental Institutions, Abingdon: Routledge. In short, there is a need for some form of governance to maintain the ocean for its various uses, preferably in a sustainable manner. Over the years, a number of international treaties have been signed in order to regulate international ocean governance. Current international policy goals to create more sustainable relations with the ocean are captured in Sustainable Development Goal 14 "life below sea".
Legal framework
There are two major international legal organizations that are involved in ocean governance on a global scale, the International Maritime Organization and the UNCLOS. The International Maritime Organization (IMO), which was ratified in 1958 is responsible mainly for maritime safety, liability and compensation and they have held some conventions on marine pollution related to shipping incidents.
IMO marine pollution conventions 1972 – Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (LDC) 1969 – International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties (INTERVENTION). 1973 – International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78). 1990 – International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response, and Cooperation (OPRC). 2000 – Protocol on Preparedness, Response and Cooperation to Pollution Incidents by Hazardous and Noxious Substances (HNS Protocol).
The IMO sees the regulation of marine pollution as one of its most important responsibilities. In particular, the MARPOL convention is regarded as one of its greatest successes.International Maritime Organization (IMO), http://www.imo.org/About/Pages/Default.aspx [Accessed: 10/12/2011]. The result of MARPOL has meant that oil pollution has decreased due to a change in equipment standards of oil tankers to prevent operational discharge of oil.Mitchell, R.B. (1994) International Oil Pollution at Sea. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. However, the main organisation concerned with the economic, environmental, ethical, peace and security issues is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
UNCLOS was first established under the Third UNCLOS in 1973 and fully ratified in 1982. The main aim was to adopt a regime of national seas and international waters on a global scale.Birnie, P.W. (1993) The Law of the Sea and the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. In: N. Ginsburg, E. Mann Borgese and J. R. Morgan (eds.) Ocean Yearbook, Vol 10, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 13–35. It was agreed that the jurisdictional boundaries of individual states were to be enlarged to 200 nautical miles off a state's coastline. Coastal states were given greater rights to control these areas for protective purposes and the exploitation of natural resources.Vallega, A. (2001) Sustainable Ocean Governance: A geographical perspective. London: Routledge. In total 38 million square nautical miles of ocean space was put under jurisdiction under the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) and the legal framework concerning the continental shelf and territorial sea were altered.Oceans and the Law of the Sea, https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_historical_perspective.htm [Accessed: 12/12/2011].
However, the Convention did not come into full effect despite some progress between 1973 and 1982. This was mainly due to a dispute over mineral resources, particularly manganese nodules in the deep-oceans. Developing countries preferred treating these minerals as "common heritage," that via an international organization would allow them to benefit from a sharing of these resources.Krasner, S.D. (1985) Structural Conflict: The Third World Against Global Liberalism, Berkeley: University of California Press. However, the developed world, in particular the United States, was not in favor of this and preferring a first-come, first-served approach, with some suggesting this position was based on self-economic interest. Only in 1994 did the United States renounce their objections so that the Convention could be enacted.
Institutions established by UNCLOS International Seabed Authority (ISA) – An independent international institution that came into force in 1994, with the aim of acting as a custodian of ocean commons (the Common Heritage of Mankind). However its main purpose is to regulate deep seabed mining.International Seabed Authority (ISA), http://www.isa.org.jm/en/about [Accessed: 12/12/2011]. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) – Assists states in affairs to do with the establishment of outer limits of their continental shelf.Oceans and the Law of the Sea, https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_purpose.htm#Purpose [Accessed: 12/12/2011]. Regime for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) – This was established to handle disputes with the application and interpretations of UNCLOS.International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) http://www.itlos.org/index.php?id=8&L=0 [Accessed: 12/12/2011]. The Meeting of the State Parties (SPLOS) - carried out to conform with the article 319, paragraph 2 (e) to the LOSC Convention and is concerned with administrative matters.Repetto, M.S. (2005) Towards an ocean governance framework and national policy for Peru. [online] Available at: <https://www.un.org/depts/los/nippon/unnff_programme_home/fellows_pages/fellows_papers/repetto_0506_peru.pdf> [Accessed:12/12/2011].
Participatory Governance
Participatory governance is a democratic governance approach, in which citizen participation, and their deliberative empowerment through inclusion and representation is the focus. It is a key pillar of ocean governance introduced to through Article 21 in the 1992 Rio Conference on Environment and Development empowering civil society and acknowledging their role in governance. This supported the Brundtland Commission's Report in which top-down regulations were reported to fail in the scope of marine governance.
Ocean governance is benefited by an integrated governmental approach whereby state and non-state actors like civil society actors work together, incorporating a range of knowledge. Blue civil society, which includes NGOs, philanthropists and communities, are becoming increasingly important in ocean governance and participatory governance due to the power they have in agenda setting and pushing policy narratives particularly concerning themes such as climate change. Policies intended to adapt to the challenges of the oceans often excludes and thereby increases the vulnerability of local communities, fishers, and indigenous groups, often the most influenced in daily life by these policies. The inclusion of local community groups aid in breaking down the economically dominated power dynamic that is prevalent in global ocean governance and challenges the westernised, state dominated approach to global ocean governance.
Role of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC) The inclusion of local communities and indigenous knowledge in ocean governance leads to greater and more sustainable ocean governance policies due to greater incorporation of ideas such as generational views of environmental stewardship. Examples include projects in Canada where indigenous knowledge has improved the efficiency of ocean governance and conservation by the application of Haida nation principles to marine land use planning, and in Indonesia where collaboration between local government and indigenous communities has led to community management of marine resources and rehabilitation of the local mangrove environment.
States alone cannot create sustainable ocean governance. Current major ocean governance legislation such as UNCLOS does not fully incorporate or protect the rights of indigenous and local communities and whilst international frameworks such as UNDRIP try to rectify this solution encouraging the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction agreement, there is no definitive overlap between states and local communities.
Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management in Canada (ICOM)
In 2002, Canada introduced the Oceans Strategy, which was heavily based on participatory governance principles: "The governance model proposed for Integrated Management is one of collaboration. It involves ocean management decisions based on shared information, on consultation with stakeholders, and on their advisory or management participation in the planning process. It is also based on institutional arrangements that bring together all stakeholders. Participants take an active part in designing, implementing and monitoring the effectiveness of coastal and ocean management plans, and partners enter into agreements on ocean management plans with specific responsibilities, powers and obligations. It is also recognized that in specific cases, Integrated Management and planning may be achieved through co-management."Government of Canada (2002) Canada's Ocean Strategy: Our Oceans, Our Future. [online] Available at: <https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/cosframework-cadresoc/pdf/im-gi-eng.pdf> [Accessed: 12/12/2011].
Case Study: The Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) Initiative
The aim of the ESSIM Initiative is to create integrated and adaptive management plans that are a collaborative effort for ecosystem, social, economic and institutional sustainability of the Eastern Scotian Shelf.Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2001) The Eastern Scotia Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) Initiative: Development of a Collaborative Management and Planning Process. Nova Scotia: Fisheries and Oceans Canada It incorporates maintaining existing jurisdictional responsibilities, inclusion, consensus, accountability, dispute resolution, networking, evolution, and learning by doing, which are all part of the governance principles in the Oceans Strategy.BL Smith Workgroup Inc. (2004) Eastern Scotia Shelf Integrated Management Initiative: Proposed Collaborative Planning Model. A Discussion Paper. In: Oceans and Coastal Management Report 2004–2005: Nova Scotia: Fisheries and Oceans Canada.