Global Ocean Governance and Policy: Are Current Trends in Research and Collaboration Networks Invigorating toward Sustainable Ocean Futures?

To source literature, the Scopus digital repository was utilized. The search was conducted on 29^th September 2024 and the customized search query used was ‘TITLE-ABS-KEY (marine AND governance AND polic*). Using the search query, 2,078 documents were identified, and the documents were downloaded (including their bibliometric information), in a Microsoft Excel CSV file (See link: https://shorturl.at/RfNwF). The search query was customized to (i) include a dearth of evidence-based research articles that integrate marine social and natural science perspectives (historical, and current) (ii) obtain transdisciplinary perspectives on ocean governance and policy and (iii) uncover critical insights and future ocean sustainability perspectives in policy and research since the coining of the BE paradigm in 2012, as emphasized in ocean sustainability studies and literature (Croft et al., 2024; Matovu, 2024; Matovu et al., 2024a, 2024b, 2024c, 2024e; WOA II, 2021).

The bibliometric analysis tool in R software was used to screen and analyze the 2,078 documents. This was done in a phased process, after the installation of a bibliometric analysis tool, called Biblioshiny in R, as guided by Matovu et al. (2024d) and Mim et al. (2024). First, the R software was downloaded, installed, and run on the computer. This was followed by the installation of RStudio. To install the Biblioshiny tool in RStudio, the following procedure was undertaken: (i) clicking on packages, and installing bibliometrix, (ii) inserting the word ‘library (bibliometrix) and run, and (iii) inserting the word ‘Biblioshiny ()’ and enter. On entering, an automated dashboard opened, where the analysis was done. The initially downloaded Excel CSV file was then imported to the opened dashboard for analysis.

As the study aimed at uncovering the trends in research and policy on ocean governance, twelve analyses were conducted. These included (i) research performance analysis (annual scientific production of research, average citations per year, and Three-field plot), (ii) analysis of the most relevant sources and sources production over time, (iii) globally dominant authors and author’s production over time, (iv) most dominant affiliation and affiliation production over time, (v) countries analysis (i.e., corresponding authors’ countries, most cited countries, and countries’ scientific production of research on ocean governance and policy, over time), (vi) documents analysis (i.e., most global cited documents), (vii) words analysis (i.e., dominant keywords used, tree map, and trending topics in research and policy), (viii) social structure and networks (i.e., countries and authors’ collaborations), (ix) intellectual structure and networks (i.e., on co-citation network analysis), (x) conceptual structure (i.e., thematic mapping and evolution), (xi) factorial approach (i.e., word mapping), and (xii) clustering by coupling of key networks in research and policy. The key findings from the analysis are given in the next section.

Here, an overview of the bibliometrix of the sourced literature is given. This includes the timespan, document content, and document types (see Table 1). A notable highlight is that from 1988–2024 (36 years), the annual growth rate of research on ocean governance, and policy stands at a respectable 15.52 percent. The number of multiple-authored documents is comparatively higher than that of single-authored papers.

An in-depth analysis of the annual scientific production and citation of research is given in Figure 1. Generally, the annual production of research on ocean governance, and policy has been increasing, especially after 2012. Of concern, however, the mean total citations (TC) per article have been plummeting (Also see Appendices 1 and 2).

Figure 1. Annual scientific publications and mean TC per article published on ocean governance and policy for selected years (1988−2023). Author modification of data sourced from Scopus/Biblioshiny. TC, total citations.

Download Original Figure

An account of the plummeting citations of research articles could be invigorated by the insights obtained from the three-field plot (Figure 2). An analysis of the 12 authors, 12 keywords, and 12 affiliations revealed three main issues. Dominant authors are from institutions from developed nations, and the keywords being emphasized, such as governance (although commendable), hardly specify inclusive governance mechanisms for sustainable ocean futures, as emphasized in some studies (Partelow et al., 2023; Spalding et al., 2023). The dominance of authors from the global north or similar institutes might also lead to a narrow focus on specific themes, such as marine spatial planning (MSP), and marine protected areas (MPAs). MSP has proved a complex and expensive mechanism in most coastal states, including in the European Union (EU) (van Tatenhove et al., 2017, 2021). A similar trajectory is evident with a three-field plotting based on author keyword plus (Appendix 3). These indicators might translate into limited interest (citation scores/impact) by scholars in vulnerable regions, as they might not augur with the pressing ocean governance and sustainability issues, such as blue equity, and co-governance in the tropics.

Figure 2. Three-field plot based on the analysis of the 12 authors, affiliations, and keywords used in ocean governance, and policy research. Source: Scopus/Biblioshiny.

Download Original Figure

An analysis of the works and perspectives of the global dominant authors can reveal novel directions and insights on whether their works cascade towards sustainability discourses and sustainable futures. In Appendices 4 and 5, the dominant authors based on the number of articles published and TC per year (TCpY) of the published articles are given. In Table 2, the 15 dominant authors (based on the frequency of publications, highest number of TC, and TCpY, over the years are given.

Among the dominant 15 authors, as shown under Table 2, the work of Bennett and Dearden (2014; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.08.017) published in Marine Policy Journal, has the highest TC and TCpY. This work explains the causation of mal-implementation and limited community support for total conservation measures, such as MPAs in tropical regions. It is recommended that as coastal communities normally view MPAs as a threat to their access rights to marine livelihood resources, collaborative governance mechanisms that aid socio-cultural, economic, and ecological outcomes are urgently needed. Additionally, the works of authors, such as Cisneros-Montemayor et al. (2019) and Sumaila et al. (2021) have highlighted and emphasized critical sustainable governance pathways, such as social equity in the BE and inclusive or adequate financing mechanisms for the vulnerable coastal states.

An overview of the institution’s leading research on ocean governance helps uncover the degree of institutional leadership in research. A review of the 15 dominant institutions in research driving ocean policy and governance is highlighted in Figure 3 (Also see Appendix 6). Here, an unbalanced leadership trend is observed. Leading institutions are either from the global north or developed countries, and no institutions are from emerging/developing countries. (un)surprisingly, this trend is not new, as it has persisted for years. Although these institutions, such as the University of Tasmania have either published or funded critical research on ocean governance especially in the Pacific Ocean SIDS, biases might emerge in reporting or uncovering insights of institutions from vulnerable or less developed coastal states.

Figure 3. Bibliometric analysis of the five leading institutions researching ocean governance and policy (2020−2023). Source: Scopus/Biblioshiny.

Download Original Figure

Here, an in-depth analysis of the most cited countries in research, countries’ scientific production of research on ocean governance and policy, and corresponding authors’ countries are indicated.

Table 3 indicates the countries’ scientific production of research on ocean policy and governance. Among the top 20 countries, most publications are from developed or rich countries (See Appendix 7). Only five countries (Marked as “1” in Table 3), categorized as emerging or less developed, have their works prominently published. Most published works are from Australia, European, and North American countries.

A similar trajectory is evident concerning the citation analysis of works by countries. The works published by developed or richer countries have garnered more TCs and average article citations (AACs) compared to works published by developing or emerging countries (Table 4 and Appendix 8). This is irrespective of the publication of similar topics/themes on ocean governance and policy.

In Figure 4, an analysis of the dominant countries in research based on the corresponding authorship is given. Corresponding authorship helps in highlighting the apportionment of research communication (by whom and from where, and the impact it generates). Correspondence on both single-country publications (SCP) and multi-country publications (MCP) is dominated by authors from developed or rich countries. Most countries (including the USA with 134) publish more SCPs than MCPs. This has translated into a relatively high level of impact on their works, as compared to non-corresponding authors’ countries (Appendix 9). The publication of MCPs increases the research impact and visibility of a given country. For instance, with only 31 MCPs of authors from Germany, a higher MCP impact of 50.8 percent has been realized. Only authors and institutions from China have consistently ranked among the highest performing in ocean policy and governance issues.

Figure 4. An overview of the 15 leading countries based on the nature of collaborations in publications. Source: Scopus/Biblioshiny.

Download Original Figure

The top 20 global cited documents (including the citation impact of their works) are given under Table 5 (Also see Appendix 10). From the analysis of these documents, critical narratives envisioned to drive ocean sustainability, such as collaborative stakeholder engagements, BE, and ocean equity among others are given. For instance, the work of Dauvergne (2018) succinctly highlights the impediments to the governance of ocean pollution, including (i) globalization of the plastic industry, (ii) fragmented and complex policies on marine plastic pollution, and (iii) resistance to self-regulating or coherent reforms/regulations by key industry stakeholders. Other studies have explained the socioecological ramifications of unsustainable ocean management practices, and recommended several BE and sustainability mechanisms (Matovu et al., 2024b, 2025; Spalding et al., 2023). This calls for the enactment of a stronger and more comprehensive global marine plastics treaty and collaborative governance mechanisms for ocean sustainability outcomes.

The need for transformational changes in ocean governance, especially in tropical regions scavenged by human-environmental shocks, such as pollution, overfishing, and climate change, is further emphasized by studies conducted by (Gelcich et al., 2010; Maes et al., 2016). The work of Pinsky et al. (2018) further dissects into the critical issues related to migratory species, such as fish. It is argued that marine living organisms, such as fish have shifted/migrated at an average rate of 70 kilometers per decade. With the increasing changes in ocean circulation patterns and human activity, these migrations are projected to spiral (Miloslavich et al., 2018). This creates a need for collaborative local, national, regional, and international governance pathways to avert possible conflicts regarding migratory marine living resources ownership and access (Miloslavich et al., 2018; Pinsky et al., 2018).

Additionally, interest in publishing novel ocean governance and policy issues, notably by top journals in ocean research, such as Marine Policy, has increased since 2012 (Figure 5). For instance, among the top five journals publishing research on ocean policy and governance, Marine Policy and Ocean & Coastal Management rank first and second. A review of the website of the Marine Policy journal (Marine Policy | Journal | ScienceDirect.com by Elsevier), gives an account of this. For over two and a half decades, the journal has published top-notch research on ocean policy, and governance issues, across geographies. This partly implies that the Marine Policy Journal is a respectable journal in this discourse.

Figure 5. Top 5 sources/journals of scholarly information on ocean policy and governance, based on the number of publications from 2019 to 2023. Source: Scopus/Biblioshiny.

Download Original Figure

Authors publishing in these journals have garnered high impact (in terms of citations, collaborations, and funding for early career researchers). For instance, the most cited journal of Bennett and Dearden (2014), was published in the Marine Policy Journal (See Table 5).

As part of scientific mapping and network analysis, word analysis unravels critical keywords and trending topics in research (Mim et al., 2024). In this study, three components are analyzed: (i) dominant keywords used, (ii) tree mapping, and (iii) trending topics in research and policy.

In Figure 6, a keyword plus analysis of the 100 dominant keywords used by authors and in documents on ocean governance and policy is given. A critical overview of the keywords reveals two critical issues: (i) there is an emphasis on ocean governance and marine policies, but (ii) there seems to be a lack of specific focus on how this could be done. For instance, keywords, such as ‘protected area’ and ‘conservation management’, are increasingly becoming discordant conduits for sustainable and inclusive ocean governance. This has been emphasized in several prominent studies on ocean equity, governance, and policy (Bennett and Dearden, 2014; Bennett et al., 2021; Cisneros-Montemayor et al., 2019, 2022; Croft et al., 2024).

Figure 6. Keyword plus word analysis of the 100 most prominent key terms used in ocean governance and policy research. Source: Scopus/Biblioshiny.

Download Original Figure

The limited focus on sustainable and inclusive ocean governance mechanisms is explicitly revealed in the tree map (Figure 7). For instance, although authors, institutions, documents, and sources emphasize the need for ocean governance, only 6 percent of the keywords emphasize this. Only 2 percent of the keywords by authors emphasize the importance of crucial sectors that drive ocean equity and livelihoods, such as small-scale fisheries. Additionally, 1 percent of documents/research emphasize the need for knowledge on high seas, coastal community participation, or stakeholder engagements. This might create bleak futures for co-governance and identification of sustainable ocean governance transitions, and mechanisms, as emphasized in recent studies (Croft et al., 2024; Matovu, 2024; Matovu et al., 2024a, 2024e; Scott et al., 2024).

Figure 7. A tree-map showing the number of documents and percentile of keywords focusing on ocean governance and policy issues. Source: Scopus/Biblioshiny.

Download Original Figure

A more worrisome trend is revealed with the keyword analysis of the trending topics in ocean governance and policy research from 2012 to 2024 (Figure 8). For instance, critical themes envisioned to drive ocean equity, policy, and sustainability, such as environmental justice are a recent addition in scholarship. Unfortunately, the frequency of such critical themes, including BE, is still low (with a frequency score of less than 50).

Figure 8. Analysis of the trending topics (including the term frequency score) on ocean policy and research (2012–2024). Source: Scopus/Biblioshiny.

Download Original Figure

Social network analysis denoted the dynamics of authors’ and countries’ collaborations over time (Matovu et al., 2024d; Mim et al., 2024). In other words, it shows how or which countries/authors collaborate with whom. From a countries’ collaboration map, there is evidence that collaborations are dominant among countries with the same level of development. Most developed or rich countries collaborate amongst themselves. For instance, there are more collaborations between the USA and countries, such as Australia, and Japan. Few collaborations exist between developed and developing countries (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Countries’ collaboration map on ocean policy and governance issues. Source: Scopus/Biblioshiny.

Download Original Figure

A similar trend is revealed concerning authors’ collaborations. There seems to be a preference for collaborations among authors from the same regions (developed), global prominence, institutions, research fields, or countries. As highlighted in the density map (Figure 10), prominent authors, such as Van Leeuwen J and Van Tatenhove J, have mainly concentrated their research and collaborations in Europe or on issues affecting ocean governance in the European context. This is revealed in their recent work on ‘Theorizing reflexivity and transformative change in marine governance’ (https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2024.2337706). Although a commendable scholarly input is revealed concerning the limited comprehension of transformative ocean governance approaches, the limited collaboration with scholars from developing/emerging countries might lead to the missing out on critical human-centric and community transformative governance perspectives from vulnerable tropical communities.

Figure 10. A density map showing the network of collaboration among established and prominent authors. Source: Scopus/Biblioshiny.

Download Original Figure

Here, a co-citation network analysis of the works of authors is done. As indicated in Figure 11, most authors cite the works of those authors within each field. This regurgitates the inclusion of diverse perspectives in research. For instance, most of the prominent works of Vince J, have focused on ocean governance in the scope of MSP or MPAs, such as in Australia and the South Pacific Ocean (Vince et al., 2015, 2017). This could partly explain the cobweb of networks with authors, such as Douvere F and Ehler C, who have extensively published on MPA and MSP. For instance, a recent article by Ehler (2021), gives a chronology of MSP, implementation challenges, and possible strategies for inclusive MSP by 2030.

Figure 11. A co-citation network analysis of the intellectual structure of research on ocean governance and policy. Source: Scopus/Biblioshiny.

Download Original Figure

Using a network approach to analyze keywords used by authors researching ocean policy and governance, two components of analysis were identified: (i) thematic mapping and (ii) thematic evolution. Thematic mapping underscores the degree of relevance and development of themes in each field (Mim et al., 2024). In Figure 12, the thematic mapping of the dominant 50 keywords used by authors in the research is indicated. Key themes emphasized in ocean sustainability research and policy, such as co-management, socio-ecological systems, ocean governance, and high seas are still either basic or motor themes (low relevance degree). Worse still, inclusive perspectives, such as blue carbon, MSP, and blue growth are still emerging or declining themes (Appendix 11).

Figure 12. Thematic mapping of the prominent keywords used in ocean governance and policy research. Source: Scopus/Biblioshiny.

Download Original Figure

The low level of prominence of critical themes emphasized in ocean research, policy, and governance is highlighted by clustering using coupling, of the keywords plus used in articles, and by authors (Appendix 12). Most often, the perspectives and narratives of the impact of research have been shifting towards hard laws/regulations or strict ocean governance mechanisms, such as environmental protection (80 percent), and marine parks (63.6 percent).

The declining degree of relevance of historically prominent/dominant themes could be well-explained by the analysis of keywords over time. A thematic evolution of prominent themes reveals that prominent governance and ocean policy themes have been shifting (Figure 13). Irrespective of the changing themes, critical safety nets for ocean governance, and policy, such as the ocean regime as guided by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), have gained less interest among researchers.

Figure 13. Thematic evolution based on the analysis of the dominant 150 keywords used in research on ocean governance and policy. Source: Scopus/Biblioshiny.

Download Original Figure

In bibliometric analysis, the factorial approach, especially through word mapping helps in situating the interconnectedness, concentration level, performance, and perception of a given research theme in each field. When more themes are concentrated in each cluster, it signifies a high degree of connectedness and perception in the research field. In Figure 14, multiple correspondence analysis criteria were used to analyze the 50 key themes/words in research on ocean governance and policy. As revealed in the red cluster, there is a recognition of the need for sustainable ocean governance and policy mechanisms, including regulatory frameworks, and fishery management. However, the blue cluster indicates that there are still gaps in identifying and operationalizing integrated ocean governance and policy approaches, such as those involving ecosystem management, oceanography, and public policy.

Figure 14. A factorial analysis of the 50 prominent key themes and words based on the concentration of the different dimensions. Source: Scopus/Biblioshiny.

Download Original Figure

Studies have categorically indicated that a historical impediment to the charting of inclusive ocean governance mechanisms has been the unfathomable exclusion of vulnerable social groups, such as Indigenous coastal communities, coastal women, and vulnerable states in the policymaking discourse (Matovu and Raimy, 2022; Matovu et al., 2024e; Partelow et al., 2023; Spalding et al., 2023). Exclusion has been prominently featured in lucrative long-established ocean sectors, such as fishing, marine transport, mining, and tourism (IMO, 2023; Lubchenco and Haugan, 2023; Matovu et al., 2024b, 2025). In the fisheries sector for instance, although women have been the drivers of fisheries value chains, over 80 percent are engaged in vulnerable employment and few policies have been enacted to boost their empowerment (FAO, 2024a, 2024b). Worst-case scenarios have been reported among vulnerable Indigenous communities sedentary in resource-rich ocean zones, such as in the Pacific Ocean (Vince et al., 2015, 2017). Here, the historical rights of these communities have been usurped, and yet, before the ratification of the High Seas Treaty, few policies were considerate of the needs of indigenous communities (Matovu, 2024; Matovu and Raimy, 2022). The social injustices have created a dichotomy of unsustainable governance challenges including resentment of micro-level governance frameworks, mistrust, structural injustice, disempowerment, voluntary practices on co-management, and loss of critical social science citizens’ knowledge on the management of unique marine species (Bennett et al., 2022, 2023; Croft et al., 2024; Scott et al., 2024).

The recognition of the contribution of coastal communities in the ocean sustainability discourse has been primed to unplug critical social tipping points for sustainable governance (Matovu et al., 2024e; Spalding et al., 2023; Scott et al., 2024). By creating social leverage points, five sustainable social science priorities to guide ocean governance, policy, and initiatives can be hatched. These include the promotion of ethical and moral facades in policy decision-making, improved co-governance (including voluntary management of coastal zones and resources), morality in addressing the systemic impacts of ocean activities on coastal communities, creation of moral or acceptable values, and codes of an-thropogenic behavior in the utilization of ocean resources and collaborative co-creation of transdisciplinary partnerships/governance pathways (Matovu et al., 2024a; Spalding et al., 2023). Using the transdisciplinary approach to co-design sustainability pathways and narratives drives micro-level co-governance and inclusion in coastal fisheries value chains (Matovu et al., 2024e). Such narratives might be critical in debunking historical disempowerment blocks that have boxed out most tropical fisheries communities/countries from the policymaking table on most global fisheries agreements (FAO, 2024a; Spalding et al., 2023).

Today, it is common knowledge that ocean governance has been complicated by the sporadic negative oscillations in ocean environmental patterns (IRP, 2021). For instance, climate change-induced impacts, such as sea level rise have led to shifting baselines, loss of sovereign rights of SIDS, and fear of disappearance of SIDS, among others (Matovu and Raimy, 2022). Such environmental concerns have naturally made provisions embedded under the UNCLOS, such as on governance of migratory species, determination of baselines, and outer limits of the continental shelf, among others, utterly less applicable (Matovu, 2024; Matovu and Raimy, 2022). A worse scenario was envisioned as limited regulatory safeguards were in place, for instance, to protect high-seas biodiversity and the destiny of submerging islands, before the ratification of the high-seas treaty (Matovu, 2024; Tafon et al., 2022). With the ratification of the high-seas treaty, avenues for collaborative governance and policymaking could be charted, such as the creation of a regulatory mechanism for ocean gyres, transboundary ocean mining, and marine plastic pollution (Haward, 2015; Miloslavich et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018).

What remains to be seen, however, is how to operationalize such collaborative governance mechanisms. Recent studies have highlighted four focal and coherent areas/phases that can guide this, including transformative intention, collaborative designing of sustainability policies, collaborative implementation, and collaborative evaluations (Partelow et al., 2023; Spalding et al., 2023). Such a phased approach can help improve socio-economic-environmental benefits and minimize harm. For instance, the Natural Resources Governance Institute has identified seven key perceptions on how such a sustainable governance mechanism can be created, to minimize the hidden and overt coasts of offshore and coastal mining (Jouffray et al., 2023; Matovu et al., 2024c). This proves that the early integration of inclusive governance perspectives during intention setting, and design phases offers the deepest potential for delivering sustainability benefits and reducing risks across the human-environmental landscape (Bennett et al., 2021, 2022, 2023; Croft et al., 2024). Later-stage collaborations can leverage opportunities in existing projects to reflect and learn while improving impact assessments, transparency, and reporting for future activities (Cisneros-Montemayor et al., 2019, 2022).

These relate to the creation of sustainable win-win, equitable, and sustainable economic benefit-sharing policies/governance mechanisms on/for ocean resources, goods, and services. A critical concern in ocean governance/policy has been the apportionment of fairness in who gains and losses from the tapping of ocean goods, services, and resources (IRP, 2021). This has been well-documented in the heated contestations among rich and emerging countries on financing or creation of carbon-offsetting policies and climate-change resilience pathways (Blythe et al., 2021a, 2021b; Sumaila et al., 2021, 2023). Additionally, in the ocean policy and research arena, although serious studies have been conducted on value estimation of resources and factors affecting value, which are very important for the global economy, few studies examine the effect of economic vulnerabilities and unfair economic injustices on tropical coastal countries, and attitudes towards the ocean economic landscape (Lubchenco and Haugan, 2023; Sumaila et al., 2023). Therefore, there is a need for an integrated and sustainable economic model that can both predict the current and future sustainability funding/economic valuations, based on the data obtained from different stakeholders (Ocean Panel, 2020; OECD, 2023, 2024).

Recent studies have proposed a deviation from the unjust traditional ocean financing models, including traditional loans, and foreign direct investments from rich coastal countries to poor countries (in substitute for concessions) to blended financial pathways (Sumaila et al., 2021). Such novel financial governance pathways can birth a typology of benefits, especially in the context of depleting ocean resources: (i) recognition of the depletion of re-source stocks, (ii) scientific/economic/financial sustainability knowledge of ecology and resilience of targeted species and their role in ecosystem dynamics, and (iii) demonstration-scale experimental trials, building on smaller-scale sustainability financing experiments (Croft et al., 2024; OECD, 2024; Sumaila, et al., 2023). This can help bid farewell to unsustainable business models, that have created a discernible gap in the financial risk-return equations of the ocean economy landscape (IRP, 2021). The creation of sustainable ocean financing pathways, including a sustainable financing mechanism (as envisioned in the High Sea Treaty), breeds new competitive market returns (led by vulnerable but resource-rich coastal states) (Sumaila et al., 2021, 2023).

This leverage point mirrors the developed blue ocean financing models/approaches, such as the Blue Finance Commitment ‘backblue initiative’ that was launched in 2021 before the Conference of Parties (COP26) (ORRAA, 2024). Through the #backblue’ initiative, global commitments towards the United Nations (UN) ‘Race to Zero’ financial initiatives are being created. These have involved the setting up and adopting of science-based targets to reach net zero no later than 2050 (Sumaila et al., 2023). This commitment has been spiced up by the setting up of the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance target-setting protocol, with transparent investment pathways for a sustainable BE (ORRAA, 2024). Such initiatives have been reinforced by the UN Race to Zero Financial Initiatives and by adopting science-based targets to reach Net Zero no later than 2050 in line with their criteria. This includes aligning investments with the UN-convened Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance’s target-setting protocol. This has led to the creation of new ocean protection due diligence requirements, guided by international frameworks, such as the Sustainable Blue Economy Finance Principles hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) and the Environment and Social Policy Framework (Deutsche Bank, 2024). These are sound leverage points formally aligned with internationally recognized standards and principles, such as the Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Deutsche Bank, 2024; OECD, 2024).

These focus on ameliorating past injustices in ocean governance and policy decision-making, leadership, and implementation. The powers and influence of historical ocean treaties and institutions have been for a long time vested in the hands of the powerful and rich coastal states; with dire implications (Matovu and Raimy, 2022). A prominent ramification is evident in how the powerful coastal states bullied the fair regulatory mechanisms and principles promulgated by the proponents of the UNCLOS (Chang, 2023; Haward, 2015). The complex institutionalized politics on ocean commons is further reported with the complacency demonstrated by developed countries in bringing onboard perspectives and decisions of less developed countries, such as on conducting marine scientific research and ocean mining in the high seas, policy instruments on transboundary fishing practices and value chain (Armitage et al., 2017; Blythe et al., 2021a; FAO, 2024a, 2024b; Jouffray et al., 2020, 2023; Matovu, 2024; Matovu and Raimy, 2022).

The recent ratification of the high-seas treaty, which includes critically important and just institutional mechanisms could be key in creating sustainable governance and policymaking (Matovu, 2024). The high-seas treaty, for instance, has advocated for the creation of an access and benefit-sharing Committee (Matovu, 2024). This ensures fair representation and guidance on future monetary benefit sharing. Additionally, a key establishing high-seas treaty institution- the COP is targeted (Matovu, 2024). As a primary decision-making body (onto which equal representation of coastal states/stakeholders is targeted), with the legal authority and backing to adapt to emergency and pressing ocean governance and legal issues, expeditious redress of the concerns of the most vulnerable communities or coastal states will be achieved. Other institutional safeguards being developed, such as under the Ocean Decade are entangled with the premise of promoting just institutional mechanisms that benefit all coastal communities, and vulnerable coastal states (Blythe et al., 2021a, 2021b). Through these mechanisms, critical leverage points that avail a platform for convening different actors are streamlined (IRP, 2021). These institutional and regulatory mechanisms will enchant different actors to create a more nuanced, coordinated, and coherent approach to the conservation and management of the ocean through a cross-sectoral, cumulative impact perspective (Lubchenco and Haugan, 2023). These mechanisms, coupled with improved transparency, will help give the international community a greater say in what goes on in these global commons and will increase its ability to contribute to our knowledge of the ocean environment and the human activities across the ocean and coasts, such as ocean pollution (Armitage et al., 2017; Dauvergne, 2018; Evans et al., 2023; Gupta et al., 2024).

Studies have revealed that sustainable technologies and marine scientific research are primed to be prominent drivers for ocean sustainability, governance, and policy development (Fuso Nerini et al., 2024; Sumaila et al., 2021, 2023). Yet, only about 20 percent of the ocean has been explored or known (IRP, 2021; Matovu, 2024). Additionally, the advances in marine scientific or technological research are uneven; and dominated by rich states (Partelow et al., 2023; Sumaila et al., 2023). These stumbling blocks curtail avenues for the attainment of sustainable ocean development pillars (scientific) and the Ocean Decade targets, such as empowering women in ocean science (IRP, 2021; Matovu et al., 2024b, 2025). This poses current and future risks, such as in mitigating threats from the changing ocean environmental parameters and building the resilience of the increasingly vulnerable coastal communities, such as fishers (FAO, 2024a, 2024b; Sumaila et al., 2021).

To attain just technological transitions, sector-specific policy and governance mechanisms are increasingly being charted. For instance, in the fisheries sector, sustainability transitions have been succinctly documented under the 2021–2030 blue transformation roadmap (FAO, 2024; Matovu et al., 2024e). Under the roadmap, innovative targets, such as technological and digital transformations in the value chains (including monitoring of distant fishing fleets on the high sea), are targeted (FAO, 2024). The scientific and technological leverage points have been cemented by the creation of regulatory safety nets, such as The Right to Food Guidelines and the Small-Scale Fisheries (SSF) Guidelines (FAO, 2024a). This can be supplemented using assessments and indexes, such as the Women’s Empowerment in Fisheries and Aquaculture Index (WEFI) to track the progress made toward building transformative cultures, spaces, and avenues for sustainability (McDougall et al., 2021). The WEFI has qualitative and quantitative indicators that can help determine the level of socio-economic, institutional, technological, and psychological empowerment of a targeted coastal community, based on different dimensions.

Additionally, as most SSFs, especially in the tropics have been disempowered and manipulated, the guidelines are primed to among others: (i) provide guidance to states in their implementation of the right to food over 19 different policy areas with an emphasis on participation, including access and sustainable management of natural resources, (ii) cement efforts towards achieving the SDGs, especially SDG 1 “Zero Poverty”, SDG 2 “Zero Hunger” and SDG 14 “Life Below Water’’ and expands Right to Food Guideline 8 on “access to resources and assets”, while building on the premises of Guidelines 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, and 13 (FAO, 2024a, 2024b; Sachs et al., 2024; Spalding et al., 2023). Related technological and scientific instruments/pathways have been incrementally advanced in other BE sectors, such as marine transport, mining, and ocean energy, such as the common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES), ecosystem-based management assessments, and natural resources stocktakes, among others (Farmery et al., 2021; Haas et al., 2021; IMO, 2023; Jouffray et al., 2020, 2023; Maes et al., 2016). Under the provisions of the high-seas treaty, digitalized versions (i.e., Digital Sequence Information, derivatives, and area-based scientific management tools) for marine genetic and biotic resources are envisioned (Matovu, 2024).