Introduction

To shift course towards more equitable and sustainable ways of managing relationships between people and the OceanFootnote 1, ocean governance must prioritize inclusive, knowledge-based, and sustainable approaches. Historically, ocean planning has been shaped by legal, political and economic systems that have excluded Indigenous Peoples’ governance structures, reinforcing inequities in access, decision-making, and resource control. Today, these inequities continue because of active political, scientific and economic marginalization, often as a legacy of colonialism supported by current legal and governance frameworks and their asymmetrical knowledge hierarchies1,2,3. As a result of these forces, place-based insights are not included in governance strategies and ecosystem stewardship is weakened, thus limiting or removing the ability of Indigenous and traditional knowledge holders to inform region- and site-specific approaches to decision-making, exacerbating their vulnerabilities, and leading to environmental degradation. A vicious circle ensues, further entrenching inequities in ocean governance and ocean health.

These inequities have led Indigenous Peoples to engage in continued advocacy and hard-fought battles to maintain and reclaim tenure and access to the Ocean throughout the world4,5. Moreover, the activities of dominant and emerging sectors, such as industrial fishing, offshore energy, and deep-sea mining, can directly impede or undermine those of sectors that traditionally sustain coastal communities, further perpetuating inequity6. Co-producing sustainable ocean plans with policymakers and Indigenous and traditional knowledge holders offers a path forward that recognizes the plurality of knowledge systems, ensuring that all actors, especially Indigenous Peoples and traditional knowledge holders, are represented equitably and can meaningfully contribute to decision-making7. Co-production refers to an iterative process that brings together different knowledge systems in true partnership, involving all participants from the outset through implementation, monitoring and evaluation, with shared decision-making power and mutual benefit8,9.

The High-Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (Ocean Panel) is a partnership between 18 nations that aim to fulfill international commitments to sustainability while building resilient economies that benefit future generations10. The process of developing ocean plans—and who is involved—holds critical importance. Within this paper, the voices of scholars and researchers of Indigenous and non-Indigenous backgrounds — alongside traditional knowledge holders from the Global North and Global South — unite in a shared purpose: to improve our understanding of a regenerative relationship with marine and coastal ecosystems and the policies and actions that guide them. Thus, we recognize the importance of the positionality of all contributors and its importance in mitigating bias and discrimination. We recognize power imbalances due to economic, social and environmental disparities experienced by different contributors. As such, we seek to work together to bridge multiple knowledge systems with a deep understanding of our positionality and our need to consistently and methodically work towards equitable practices throughout this work7. We argue that governments have an opportunity to co-produce their plans with Indigenous and traditional knowledge holders in ways that engage individuals, communities and policymakers in a shared vision of Ocean stewardship. This collaborative approach allows ocean governance to be tailored to local contexts, as Indigenous and traditional knowledges are deeply rooted in specific ecosystems, waterscapes, landscapes and cultural understandings of nature.

We define ocean equity as seeking ‘redress of historic and systemic disadvantages’11. The concept of equity extends beyond that of equality because it accounts for the continued marginalization of individuals ‘on the basis of certain personal characteristics’ such as race, ethnicity, class, and gender. With respect to the Ocean, Indigenous and traditional knowledge holders may include Indigenous Peoples, Afro Descendants, traditional communities, local communities, small-scale fisherfolk, or artisanal fishing communities7,12, and Indigeneity is a political status13. What Indigenous Peoples and traditional knowledge holders often share is a dependence (or interdependence) on marine areas and marine resources, a long-standing or historical connection to the Ocean and coastal ecosystems, and unique knowledge systems developed through close relationships and reciprocity with surrounding environments spanning generations to millennia. However, they are often excluded from dominant ocean planning regimes, and this paper seeks to highlight some key practices and processes to change this.

Here, we present eight recommendations for strengthening the co-production of sustainable ocean plans between policymakers and Indigenous and traditional knowledge holders (Fig. 1). These recommendations were synthesized and co-identified through the greater process of collaboratively developing and writing the Ocean Panel Blue Paper titled ‘Co-producing Sustainable Ocean Plans with Indigenous and Traditional Knowledge Holders’7. The recommendations are directed primarily at governments, agencies, and institutions with the authority or influence to shape ocean governance frameworks and ensure equitable inclusion of diverse ways of knowing.

Fig. 1: Key recommendations.
Fig. 1: Key recommendations.The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Full size image

Key recommendations for more equitable approaches to co-producing ocean plans and management policies with policymakers and Indigenous and traditional knowledge holders (informed by7).

Recognize the distinct rights and knowledge systems of Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities

The process of co-producing sustainable ocean plans requires full participation from all parties in decision-making processes, in ways that consider ethics, procedures, and pertinent languages, and that ensure direct and effective participation in implementation processes. Co-producing processes involve recognizing and respecting the distinct rights and knowledge systems of Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities.

Historically, ocean management frameworks have excluded Indigenous knowledge systems and traditional knowledge14,15 as seen in agreements such as the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)16, which grants coastal states the autonomy for issuing fishing licenses and determining fishing seasons, areas and targeted species (Article 62, 46–47) with limited consideration of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. However, through continuing pressure from Indigenous Peoples’ and civil rights organizations and movements, recent developments have seen a shift towards greater recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ rights and traditional and local knowledge systems. For example, there are several key international instruments and guidelines that recognize the distinct rights and knowledge systems of Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities:

  • The 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)17.

  • The 2018 UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP)18.

  • The 1989 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (International Labour Organization Convention 169).

  • The 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (Convention on Biological Diversity).

  • The Inter-American Institute of Human Rights and the International Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination have pronounced that Afro-descendant peoples such as the Maroons and Garifuna represent a collective subject to rights, or Tribal people, ethnic community or national minority; consequently, they are subjects of collective rights.

  • The 2015 Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries and the 2012 Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests, both by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, address issues of tenure and rights relevant to coastal and marine communities.

These and other mechanisms recognize that the people and knowledge holders addressed by this paper have rights to full and effective participation and engagement in ocean planning. UNDRIP, however, specifies that Indigenous Peoples have a distinct right as people and, as such, are entitled to self-determination17.

Acknowledge and value the plurality of knowledge systems

A truly transformative approach to sustainable ocean planning embraces the richness of diverse ways of knowing, ensuring they actively shape and strengthen strategic plans. For example, the Study of Environmental Arctic Change19 highlights the use of “consistent, continuous and culturally appropriate methods” in ensuring knowledge co-production processes are aligned with Indigenous Peoples’ engagement ethics and value systems20.

For too long, knowledge hierarchies and hegemonies have marginalized Indigenous and traditional knowledge systems, disrupting ecosystems and disenfranchising communities3,4,5. Policymakers must move beyond extractive practices to embrace participatory, localized and context-specific frameworks that honor Indigenous and traditional knowledge systems as dynamic and holistic, not merely as products to be utilized4,21,22. Participatory processes must also include the practice of decolonization of the self to prevent further oppression of marginalized groups. This entails, at the very least, “critical questioning of the very power relations in which we are embedded and the often privileged positions from which we are able to speak”23, considering questions such as “Am I the best person to be leading this? Is there an Indigenous or Traditional person who can lead this? Do I really understand this situation fully? Who is identifying the benefits?”4, and should involve “resistance against coloniality as well as patriarchy, racialisation and neoliberalism”24.

Align policy frameworks

Co-producing sustainable ocean plans means centering Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) as at least equal partners alongside scientific and policy expertise, reflecting the deep interconnections between marine ecosystems and Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities and the fact that these communities will experience the most direct impacts from ocean development. Centering IKS in ocean plans begins with adopting policies that recognize Indigenous Peoples’ authority and incorporate approaches such as traditional laws known as Dina in Madagascar25, recognition of masyarakat hukum adat (translated as “customary law community”) and their legal right to participate in the planning, use and management of their marine area in Indonesia26, or the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) protocols for equitable and ethical engagement20.

Policy frameworks can also benefit from building upon existing concepts in fisheries science, maritime navigation, health, and social-ecological systems that align with IKS. For example, ecosystem-based fisheries management27,28, ‘pretty good’ rather than maximum yield29, social harvest control rules30, and integrated marine protected area management overlap with IKS principles and offer practical starting points for co-production efforts31.

To honor the IKS principle of reciprocity between people and ecosystems, co-production must bring people-focused disciplines and nature-focused disciplines together as part of policy development to ensure connections between people and ecosystems are prioritized32. Reciprocity between people and ecosystems ensures that policymakers co-create policies essential for sustainable ocean governance that cultivate equitable, reciprocal relationships with the Ocean, people, and all living ecosystems that depend on the Ocean.

Build reciprocal and equitable partnerships

Intentional co-production of policies fosters sustainable ocean governance, building equitable and reciprocal partnerships with Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities. Fostering genuine and enduring partnerships involves planned and deliberate relationship-building processes that respect cultural protocols, ceremonies, and the time required to establish trust and mutual understanding. Recognizing that time holds different values across cultural contexts is essential to these efforts. Meaningful community participation requires significant time investments, often spanning years, to build trust and genuine partnerships33. Navigating potential tensions between different community visions and priorities requires careful consideration of scale, capacity, intercultural interpretation and processes for co-governance. It is important to emphasize the difference between co-management and co-governance, where the former often refers to joint participation in implementation processes, whilst the latter refers to power sharing in strategic decision-making and therefore recognizes rights and authority of Indigenous Peoples.

Partnerships must also be built on frameworks and agreements that safeguard the intellectual property rights and data ownership protocols of Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities. These agreements should regulate access to co-created knowledge and ensure the equitable sharing of any benefits derived from such collaborations. Protecting these rights is a fundamental step in respecting the autonomy and contributions of Indigenous knowledge holders. There is evidence that sustainable ocean plans are more likely to succeed when they are developed within co-governance agreements34,35. For example, in Latin America and the Caribbean, co-governance often takes the form of community-based management, as seen in Argentina, Colombia, Guyana, and Mexico, where Indigenous and Afro-Latino communities used analysis tools to identify environmental threats and develop shared strategies that balance conservation and development36. Such agreements formally recognize Indigenous authority in managing Ocean areas, including fisheries, protected areas, and other critical resources, in collaboration with other governments.

To support meaningful co-production, approaches that reconcile and integrate different knowledge systems without subsuming one under the other must be adopted. By fostering mutual understanding through reciprocity and mutual respect for different knowledge systems9 and innovation through creative processes such as arts-based research37, these approaches can lead to the co-creation of new methodologies that are both culturally grounded and scientifically robust. Such partnerships not only uphold principles of equity and reciprocity but also enrich the capacity to address complex challenges in Ocean governance.

Prioritize equitable and accessible ocean data and knowledge systems

Recognizing the value of IKS is essential to ensuring equitable access to comprehensive ocean data, with collection and management practices that respect the rights, dependence, and traditional ecological knowledge of Indigenous communities. To achieve this, we must adhere to the CARE (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, Ethics) Principles (Fig. 2) for Indigenous Data Governance38, which provide a framework to ensure Indigenous Peoples have ownership and control over data that pertains to their lands and waters. Operationalizing these principles means embedding Indigenous Peoples’ rights, values, and governance throughout the entire data lifecycle through the use of Indigenous metadata fields that support appropriate acknowledgement and attribution from collection and access to use and reuse39. Indigenous communities should decide how data on their marine territories is gathered and shared in open repositories and platforms, ensuring it supports collective benefits, respects cultural protocols and contributes to Indigenous-led stewardship and self-determination.

Fig. 2: CARE Principles.
Fig. 2: CARE Principles.The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Full size image

The Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, Ethics (CARE) Principles for Indigenous Data Governance38.

In New Zealand, the Whakatōhea Māori Trust Board partnered with the Moana Project, a large multidisciplinary ocean modeling research program which focuses on understanding marine heat waves, the connectivity of marine species and cross-cultural knowledge exchange40. Indigenous knowledge and scientific data contributed to the development of the Whakatōhea Moana Plan, an Indigenous-led approach to management of the coastal and marine area41.

Additionally, recognizing and addressing cultural and language barriers that may impede the implementation of inclusive and sustainable ocean planning processes is critical. These barriers often stem from differences in approaches to collaboration, differing perspectives and worldviews, and approaches to leadership. For instance, varying interpretations and implementations of international conventions and agreements, may arise due to legacies of colonial rule and entrenched power structures. Ocean governance processes must embrace perspectivism (multiple viewpoints) and worlding (cultural framing) to empower IKS and Indigenous-led planning collaborations.

Fund Indigenous Peoples and traditional-led ocean planning research and planning

Securing equitable and sustainable ocean governance begins with prioritizing financial resources for Indigenous and traditional-led ocean planning research. Indigenous Peoples hold invaluable place-based knowledge essential for creating meaningful, sustainable ocean plans, yet their leadership is often constrained by inadequate funding. Addressing these disparities requires direct investment in Indigenous-led projects, empowering communities to develop and implement research aligned with their worldviews and local priorities.

One successful model is the Ărramăt Project, which specifically funds Indigenous Peoples’ organizations to conduct their own research. Their goal is to support 146 Indigenous-led place-based projects globally between 2023 and 2027. Such funding strategies enable Indigenous Peoples to avoid reliance on colonial market systems that often conflict with their cultural values42. Mechanisms like ocean use fees—levies on activities such as fishing, shipping, and tourism—can generate revenue to support Indigenous-led conservation and management43. Similarly, tenure-based user fees, including territorial use rights for fishing, create opportunities to align funding with traditional marine stewardship practices.

Blue bonds also hold significant potential for supporting sustainable ocean planning, especially in Global South nations burdened by debt and vulnerable to climate change. These financial instruments raise capital for marine conservation and sustainable development while potentially alleviating debt pressures and enhancing climate resilience. However, caution is necessary to ensure that blue bonds do not restrict governments’ ability to direct funds toward local capacity-building or Indigenous-led initiatives, as their terms are often tied to international market systems and debt agreements44,45,46.

Address intersectionality, gender biases and youth exclusion in marine science and management

Equitable ocean governance necessitates dismantling systemic barriers within colonial governments that exclude peoples based on gender, race, age, or other identities, and that fail to respect the inherent right to self-determination of Indigenous Peoples to shape the future of our Ocean using their unique governance structures. Indigenous women, Afro-descendant women, migrant women, women with disabilities, and young girls often face compounded gendered access barriers rooted in unequal power dynamics, social norms, and cultural practices47,48,49,50. Their experiences are shaped by multiple, overlapping systems of marginalization, and these intersecting identities can create compounded barriers to participation in Ocean management processes.

Gender plurality and intergenerational collaboration are not just moral imperatives; they are essential for the resilience and long-term viability of ocean governance. By integrating diverse perspectives, including those of women, elders, and youth, Ocean policies can address a broader range of societal needs while fostering innovative solutions. Youth participation, in particular, plays a critical role in intergenerational knowledge transfer, enabling the bridging of Indigenous and traditional knowledge systems with other scientific approaches51. Recognizing the intersection of ocean access, cultural heritage, and IKS is vital to ensuring inclusive policies that empower marginalized voices and promote equitable opportunities for all.

Pursue ethical, iterative and contextualized co-production processes

To co-produce truly inclusive, place-based and knowledge-based sustainable ocean plans, we first must recognize that Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities are diverse and not monolithic, each with unique perspectives, traditions and relationships to the Ocean. We must act collaboratively to confront structures of dispossession and power dynamics that ultimately continue to place Indigenous and traditional knowledge systems as external to systems of governing power9,22. Co-production approaches need to be tailored to local contexts, and ideally led by Indigenous and traditional knowledge holders52. Indigenous and traditional knowledge is deeply rooted in specific ecosystems, landscapes and cultural understandings of nature. We recognize that this knowledge may not be directly transferable to other locations, necessitating flexible and locally adapted co-production methods.

Where possible, co-production processes should actively embrace knowledge plurality and learn from integrating concepts proposed by Indigenous authors from many different cultures. As one example, a “Two-Eyed Seeing” approach was articulated in 2004 by Murdena Marshall and Albert Marshall, Mi’kmaq Elders in Canada, as,

“the gift of multiple perspective treasured by many aboriginal peoples and explains that it refers to learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of Western knowledges and ways of knowing, and to using both these eyes together, for the benefit of all” 53.

Two-eyed seeing affords an acceptance of parallel knowledge systems, recognizing a plurality of experiences and ways of knowing that exist alongside Indigenous knowledge systems. The epistemology acknowledges differing methodologies and results and addresses disagreements through collaborative methodologies that foster mutual understanding54,55.

Finally, the process of co-producing sustainable ocean plans should be iterative and cyclical (illustrated by Fig. 3), emphasizing the importance of pre-collaboration actions (Phases 0–1) such as recognizing Indigenous Peoples rights and co-conceptualizing key terms, co-construction processes (Phases 2–3) involving co-designing methodologies and implementing co-governance, and continuous review and reflection (Phase 4) to ensure the process centers equitable partnerships.

Fig. 3: Five phases.
Fig. 3: Five phases.The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Full size image

Five phases of an interactive approach to co-producing ocean plans with Indigenous and traditional knowledge holders (adapted from7).

Conclusions: Co-governance and co-management

After a long history of colonial expansion which actively attempted to decimate IKS and precipitated the decline of many ocean ecosystems, we may now be at a turning point in which knowledge plurality, social equity and reciprocal relationships between people and “more-than-human beings”56 can become dominant drivers of ocean plans.

Transformative change, however, will occur only if Indigenous and traditional knowledge holders are engaged as partners from the outset. As many Indigenous Peoples and traditional knowledge holders are reliant on the environment for their sustenance and survival, they tend to prioritize the sustainability of those environments over other values. Engaging Indigenous and traditional knowledge holders provides a useful and necessary counterbalance to the voices of extractive industries which tend to dominate multi-stakeholder processes, and leads to more inclusive, equitable, and sustainable outcomes. It is therefore vital to ensure that Indigenous Peoples and traditional knowledge holders participate in processes that generate knowledge and apply it to the policies and legal frameworks that govern human relationships with the Ocean.

Sustainable ocean plans are more likely to succeed if they are embedded in co-governance agreements that recognize the authority of Indigenous governments to manage ocean areas, fisheries and protected areas in collaboration with other governments and related agencies31,34. We therefore argue that approaches to co-management should be grounded in co-governance, moving from joint responsibility to joint authority, to respect and align with all the eight points highlighted above.

Current approaches to valuing Indigenous and traditional knowledge systems in ocean policy and planning frameworks remain uneven, and western scientific knowledge systems are frequently privileged57. Overcoming these barriers requires a genuine political commitment, a willingness for power-sharing through inclusive governance models, and the recognition of diverse knowledge systems as equally valid and valuable.