Why has this marine research institute made the ocean a member of its board? Expert Q&A
- Written by Anna Turns, Senior Environment Editor
The ocean absorbs more than 90%[1] of the atmosphere’s excess heat trapped by human-emitted greenhouse gases. It plays a vital role in mitigating the climate crisis and our health relies on[2] that of the ocean. But often, it is simply considered a place to extract[3] useful resources such as food and minerals.
The charitable research institute the Scottish Association for Marine Science (Sams) recently voted to make the ocean a trustee on its board, represented either by a specific person or a working group that can help hold the organisation to account and speak up for the ocean’s interests. The Conversation spoke to Sams’ director, Nicholas Owens, a professor of marine science, about why he thinks this step could help charities, organisations and businesses make decisions that are healthier for the ocean – and the planet.
How can the ocean be a board member?
The move to empower the ocean as a “board trustee” mirrors legal innovations, such as the recognition that rivers and ecosystems have legal “personhood”[4] in countries such as Ecuador[5], India[6] and New Zealand[7]. In 2022, the Scottish beauty company, Faith in Nature, elected “nature” to its board[8], while adventure clothing brand Patagonia announced[9] that Earth would be the US company’s only shareholder.
Human activities are disrupting marine ecosystems at an alarming rate[10]. But most of these human activities are, to a significant degree, controlled by decisions taken in boardrooms. By considering how decisions will affect the ocean as a whole, our board can hopefully make significant improvements and inspire other organisations to prioritise ocean health and sustainable marine development above resource extraction or financial gain.
How significant is this move?
I believe that electing the ocean to be a trustee of Sams could be one of the most important decisions in our history. It challenges outdated models of governance and champions a future where the ocean’s voice is central to decision-making.
This might sound like a trivial gimmick, even whimsical. But after several months of careful discussion and debate, the trustees and I are convinced that even with a strong empathy for ocean conservation and a well-informed understanding of marine environmental matters, the decisions we tend to make are anthropocentric.
This is a fundamental step change. It’s a reminder to consider this extra dimension every time a decision is made at board level and to ensure that an ocean-centric perspective seeps into everything we do.
So if this isn’t a gimmick, how will your board meetings now differ? Who will be speaking up for the ocean?
Our internal working group is currently deciding how to practically operate. For example, choosing between appointing one person (perhaps, an environmental lawyer) or a larger working committee to represent the voice of the ocean at each board meeting. Whatever the outcome, trustees will be holding our organisation to account from a less anthropocentric perspective.
More widely, this move has already started shifting the sorts of conversations our teams are having on a daily basis. From a research perspective, we’ve always been ethical, but now, this can be a catalyst for a deeper cultural change. I’m proud that lots of our staff are excited to work for an organisation that is taking this more considered approach.
Read more: World Oceans Day: We cannot meet sustainable development goals with a sick ocean[15]
What does it mean for your researchers and your marine research?
We already have teams focusing on the blue economy, investigating how best we can live alongside ocean ecosystems sustainably and mindfully without causing harm. But, some of the debates we have will change and affect the types of marine research we carry out in the future.
Take our deep sea research, for example. We carry out research to investigate deep-sea ecosystems. The results of our studies can be used for many purposes, including to inform the debate about deep sea mining licences.
If our research is not doing any harm, perhaps it’s fine for us to take samples and further investigate what’s there. But – and this certainly does take a leap in thinking – what would the ocean say about this? Should even research into such contentious topics be carried out?
This is a different way of looking at this argument, from a more neutral and less ego-centric perspective. By becoming more sensitive to the needs of the ocean environment, our suite of research interests may well evolve slightly in the future.
Could it lead to any negative consquences for the research institute?
Our current ethical policy is based on conventional norms. Taking an ocean-centric perspective could lead to different outcomes. If followed genuinely, this approach could result in poorer short-term financial performance. But we’re prepared to make a possible short-term sacrifice to ensure more positive outcomes for the ocean in the future.
Electing an ocean trustee is not just a practical step. It is a philosophical statement. By recognising that humans are part of nature and not separate from it, this challenges anthropocentric models of governance that prioritise human interests over the natural world.
Our society’s survival depends on the health of the planet’s ecosystems. This philosophy is deeply rooted in many Indigenous cultures that consider nature a partner, not a commodity.
