Lack of clarity on who the 'Our' refers to in global ocean governance declarations

The gap

Evidence profile

Sourced from the recommendations and stated research gap and future-work section of the source papers, classified as general, drawn from work published between 2024 and 2026, spanning 3 journals. Those papers have been cited 1 times in total.

Supporting evidence — 3 representative gaps

• Utilitarianism and weak sustainability: A corpus analysis of the representation of the sea by the UK Government (2010–2023) (2026) · Marine Policy · doi

  A public communication strategy that genuinely fosters ocean citizenship and sustainability must break away from the narrow utilitarian framings and instead cultivate a plural, emotional, and political relationship with the sea. 6.1. Valuing the ocean through emotions Challenges to the dominant economic discourse that reduces the ocean to a depoliticised reservoir of tradable assets is unlikely to emerge from public communication. But public policy stakeholders which want to further develop ocean awareness among the wider public can contribute to the promotion of a narrative about the sea that is not just utilitarian (revenue, job creation) but also emotional. To improve communication in a way that fosters more interest in the ocean as a place, communication should adopt a more emotional and less managerial tone. Beyond an economic, utilitarianist narrative, 15 there are other values linked to the sea. Cultural, ecological, historical, and spiritual values must be foregrounded. Similarly, a less technical and less utilitarian communication will foster positive engagement with and by civil society actors and eventually reduce their marginalization in marine policy discourse. 6.2. Highlight what positive aspects of the sea are specifically being protected There is a noticeable relative lack of discussion surrounding the benefits of the marine environment beyond the economy. Narratives describe the dangers that are being faced, such as ‘plastic’, ‘pollution’, and ‘rising sea levels’. This results in the technical discourse of plans and projects to control these dangers, which reconsolidates the idea that the ocean is dangerous, and an empty void (Authors, 2016). Such a focus on controlling the dangers also contributes to the focus on ‘maintaining’ the status quo, which can be linked to climate change inertia (Remling, 2023). To move past these narratives, it is important to define and describe the positive aspects of the sea, and what it is we are trying to protect. Through this, more positive emotion and evaluation of the sea can be imputed into the narrative. For example, “limiting plastic” should be linked to “protecting the biodiversity in our British seas”, as opposed to “conservation areas”, “marine plans” and “acidification”. 6.3. Incorporate more hopeful narratives Our analysis revealed prominent discussions of ‘threats’ and ‘dangers’ which encourage worry, rather than hope. For example, the ‘sea’ is very regularly framed as a threat through the collocation ‘rising sea levels’, suggesting we must control, and be protected from, the sea. Worry can encourage climate action, but too much can be debilitating and encourage apathy; it is important to simultaneously provide ‘hope’ to communicate to both engaged and disengaged audiences (Smith and Leiserowitz 2014). In particular, ‘rising sea levels’ portrays the sea as an agent of climate change, rather than the victim. This can partially explain the distinct lack of a discourse about protecting the sea. Stressing the anthropogenic causes of climate change can re-establish the sea as being ‘damaged’ by the effects of climate change. Such a recognition can come from an emphasis on local mitigation efforts portrayed as opportunities for innovation, which has been shown to shift the narrative towards more empowering, and hopeful ambitions (Tenali and McManus, 2022). 6.4. Use ‘Ocean’ rather than ‘sea’ when engaging the public on sustainability It is important to recognise the current contrasts between the terms ‘sea’ and ‘ocean’ revealed by our analysis. In contrast to the threat connotations of ‘rising sea levels’, the ‘ocean’ is described as requiring protection and safeguarding. The ‘ocean’ is also construed as belonging to the ‘world’, as a ‘global ocean’ of awe-inspiring size. These more positive connotations consolidate the need to protect it, and helps to avoid the unhelpful managerial, territorialisation and threat discourses related to the sea. This suggests that ‘ocean’ could be a much more effective term than ‘sea’ when engaging the public on sustainability and increasing awareness of its importance.

  generalrecommendations
  Keywords: ocean public communication positive climate discourse narrative dangers rising levels change sustainability must utilitarian emotional
• Whose Ocean? Exploring multidisciplinary perspectives towards ocean sustainability and implications for the un(der)represented (2024) · Research Ideas and Outcomes · cited 1× · doi

  Lack of clarity on who the 'Our' refers to in global ocean governance declarations (e.g., the UN Ocean Conference's 'Our ocean, our future, our responsibility'), and underrepresentation of certain voices in ocean sustainability discussions.

  generalstated research gapevidence 5/5
  Keywords: lack clarity refers global ocean governance declarations conference
• Deep differences: expanding the marine social sciences and humanities into the deep ocean (2026) · npj Ocean Sustainability · doi

  Further research is needed to explore the many human histories that have shaped, and continue to influence, the deep ocean - There is a need to develop more fine-grained perspectives within the broader domain of marine social sciences and humanities - The study highlights the importance of considering the deep ocean in discussions of sustainability and equity

  generalfuture-work sectionevidence 4/5
  Keywords: further research needed explore many human histories have

Questions about this gap