The National Geographic knows a thing or two about maps: They've been making them since 1915. 

Over those 106 years the famed publication has listed four oceans on Earth — the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian and Arctic. Those maps are now being redrawn.

A fifth ocean has been designated by the magazine: the icy waters surrounding Antarctica below the Earth's southern 60th parallel is officially being named the Southern Ocean. 

The move is significant beyond adding one more name for grade school students to remember. The Southern Ocean is fenced from the the northern oceans by a fast current that circles the Earth from west to east around Antarctica in a band centered around a latitude of 60 degrees south.

The waters south of that Antarctic Circumpolar Current are colder and ecologically distinct, the magazine says, making a home for thousands of species that can live nowhere else on Earth. 

"The Southern Ocean encompasses unique and fragile marine ecosystems that are home to wonderful marine life such as whales, penguins, and seals,” said National Geographic Explorer in Residence Enric Sala said in the announcement. 

“Anyone who has been there will struggle to explain what's so mesmerizing about it," Seth Sykora-Bodie, a marine scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) added, "but they'll all agree that the glaciers are bluer, the air colder, the mountains more intimidating, and the landscapes more captivating than anywhere else you can go.” 

The recognition of the world's fifth ocean, made official on June 8, World Oceans Day, aims to promote conservation in a region where industrial fishing has blighted populations of krill and Patagonian toothfish over the years. 

The waters around Antarctica (the Earth's seventh continent) have also been known as the Antarctic Ocean or the Austral Ocean, though the use of Southern Ocean is the most popular in the media and scientific community, and is used by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names and the International Hydrographic Organization and NOAA.

Solution-Oriented Science

The United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030, henceforth the Ocean Decade) aims to galvanize the international community to acquire and apply scientific knowledge of the ocean. The Ocean Decade is specifically intended to help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including its promise to “leave no one behind,” which includes coastal Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States, and will undoubtedly influence research agendas and financing well beyond 2030. This focus is captured in the phrase “the science we need for the ocean we want” (1). This first-of-its-kind UN Decade will require ambition and commitment, especially during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis.

Researchers hoping to help deliver the “ocean we want” as a society-first principle need to understand how science can benefit ocean-dependent people. This requires a science model that co-designs and co-delivers solutions in collaboration with people whose livelihood depends on the ocean, such as the Madagascar fishers pictured here. 

The current draft of the Ocean Decade Implementation Plan establishes a framework of outcomes, actions, and objectives, acknowledging the need for interdisciplinary approaches to design and deliver solution-oriented research alongside ocean-dependent people (1). Recent proposals from the academic literature for the Ocean Decade emphasize increasing our global biophysical understanding through exploration and observation of, and experimentation on, the ocean (2⇓⇓–5). But will understanding the ocean lead to “the ocean we want”? We argue that proposals for the UN Decade should consider a crucial point: To achieve the ocean we want, we must better understand the needs and priorities of ocean-dependent peoples and evaluate potential solutions for them.

Science, Sustainability, and Equity

Advancements in marine scientific knowledge and technological innovation have brought myriad benefits to people and the planet. They include: understanding global environmental change; assessing effects of anthropogenic activities and ocean-derived benefits to people; understanding the structure and function of ocean ecosystems; informing decisions on environmental management; and the development of technologies that enable humans to connect with and benefit from the ocean (6⇓–8). Yet, regardless of the intentions of researchers, science and technology can also be used, misused, or distorted in ways that have negative consequences on sustainable development as a result of political and economic motives.

Contemporary environmental degradation and social inequity result in part from the long-standing practice of applying scientific innovation to exploit natural resources in unsustainable and inequitable ways. Historically, science and technology were used to better understand ocean systems to enrich European nations by fueling mercantile and colonial interests and the geopolitical and economic demands of nations with substantive ocean estates or oceanic empires (9). Over the past century, the development of technologies to locate, extract, and store marine resources has led to large-scale pollution and habitat damage, serial overexploitation of marine species, and devastating fishery collapses (10), as well as the consolidation of catch from distant-water industrial fisheries among a small number of countries (11). Equity gaps continue to widen when developed nations are enriched at the expense of developing nations, particularly where preexisting disparities exist in the capacity to undertake, access, and use scientific research and innovation to collect and expropriate marine resources and absent appropriate mechanisms for equitable sharing of their commercial benefits (12).

Funding mechanisms can exacerbate inequity in the design, conduct, and use of scientific research and its outcomes. Investment in ocean research and development has been criticized for following developed nation priorities while neglecting locally determined priorities, and transnational financing is increasingly used as a means to promote geopolitical goals of certain nations (13). Emerging funding may also fail to reach developing nations deemed most in need—exemplified by the lack of adaptation funding for those nations whose fisheries are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change (14). Furthermore, where intellectual property regimes allow private actors to commercialize the results of basic science (e.g., the expansion of patentability from “inventions” [products] to also include “discoveries” [the knowledge behind products]), this can challenge the open science model of information sharing and accumulation of collective understanding (15).

Science does not inherently lead to sustainable or unsustainable (or equitable or unequitable) outcomes—the outcomes will depend on how, where, when, and by whom the science is designed, funded, conducted, and used. Our concern is that without an explicit consideration of “leaving no one behind,” scientific research meant simply to “understand the ocean” may inadvertently contribute to unsustainable and inequitable development, with disproportionate negative outcomes for disenfranchised ocean-dependent people.

Decades of research on how science contributes to innovation and policy indicates that the most successful scientific programs are solution oriented and collaborative, with policymakers, industry, and communities helping to identify science that is directly applicable to the issues they face; that is, where demand for science among end-users—the knowledge needed for decision-making—influences science supply—research priorities and outputs (16). As an example from climate science, the US Global Change Research Program aimed to provide useable knowledge for policymakers to develop mitigation and adaption plans against climate impacts, but they focused on predictive model building and understanding climate processes rather than evaluating adaptation options. As a result, this program was reportedly only able to deliver on a highly restricted set of policies to set global greenhouse gas targets and little in the way of local impact adaptation or mitigation strategy (17). Conversely, the Regional Natural Resource Management Planning for Climate Change Fund in Australia actively followed a program to reconcile science supply and demand and, as a result, was able to support nationally relevant climate projections and build capacity for climate change adaptation among decision makers (18). Solution-oriented research, based on evaluation and testing rather than only a basic understanding of ecosystems, has been identified as more effective in contributing to policy goals in the science policy literature for some time (19) and has also begun to be recognized within conservation science (20).

UN member states agreed to the SDG framework with the understanding that different national (and subnational) contexts would require context-specific planning and priorities (21), and this is also advocated in the Ocean Decade implementation plan. Ocean science for sustainable development thus needs to focus on local problems and desires in addition to global issues and approaches. The elaboration of ocean needs and societal priorities is itself a research question that would be usefully addressed during the Ocean Decade, in addition to expanding efforts to understand and map ocean processes. To ensure that ocean research contributes to achieving the SDGs, we propose a framework for solution-oriented research whereby Ocean Decade initiatives explicitly explore the needs of ocean-dependent people, the role of science and innovation in meeting those needs, and the consequences of ocean uses for those people. We believe that this proposal is timely because ocean-dependent people, such as in Small Island Developing States and Indigenous communities, are among those projected to face significant economic and health consequences from long-term climate change, ongoing overexploitation and pollution, and emerging crises including COVID-19 (22).

Our suggested framework involves a transdisciplinary science model that front-ends social sciences and humanities and works with local knowledge holders, civil society, business, and government to co-design and co-deliver solution-oriented research as envisaged in the Ocean Decade implementation plan (Fig. 1). This framework prioritizes “no one left behind,” addresses power imbalances by design, and helps realize the Ocean Decade objective of identifying ocean knowledge required for sustainable development. This framework: 1) identifies priorities and needs of ocean-dependent people; 2) understands how ocean conditions contribute to or detract from the wellbeing of ocean-dependent people, 3) proposes, designs, and implements activities and responses that aim to contribute to achieving the SDGs; and 4) evaluates and tests activities taken to promote SDGs through the acquisition and use of ocean science. Ideally, this process should provide opportunities for science policy researchers to further study the relationship between data, decisions, and outcomes and not assume that better data lead to better outcomes, as implied in an “understanding the ocean” model for the Ocean Decade.

We propose a solution-oriented model based on a theory of change that stipulates “knowing the ocean” will contribute to sustainable development.

Literature on decision making under uncertainty shows that policy is best served by science that explores and delimits uncertainty rather than only trying to reduce it (23). Our rate of understanding the ocean is unlikely to surpass both the rates at which the ocean is changing and the rate at which new scientific advances reveal new uncertainties and complexities. Complements or alternatives to prediction that should be explored in the Ocean Decade include developing state-of-the-art risk assessment (7), multi-model ensemble approaches to forecasting future oceans given uncertainty in data and model structure (24), and participatory scenario analyses to explore multiple policy pathways (25).

Further, if science programs are successful in reducing uncertainty in key natural processes, these science programs will not necessarily lead to greater certainty of effective interventions towards equitable and sustainable development. Any potential sustainability initiative would need to navigate complex and dynamic ocean systems, meaning that understanding natural environmental processes is not enough; effective sustainability initiatives need to account for social, economic, environmental, and governance dimensions simultaneously. Yet science is by design a reliable way to identify outcomes of sustainable development initiatives (19) and can better serve policy when used to evaluate policy actions already undertaken rather than when used predictively for policy making (19, 20).

Modeling Success

Existing initiatives relating to sustainable development offer an opportunity to implement a solution-oriented research framework. Globally, thousands of projects—either proposed or already underway—aim to promote marine sustainable development. They operationalize diverse theories of change, few of which have been tested. The Voluntary Commitments for ocean sustainability, made by governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector, and other organizations at the first UN Ocean Conference, document a subset of these.

Beyond these ocean initiatives, we suggest that the same evaluation-research model can be used on marine science to policy programs attempting to promote sustainable development, such as the Integrated Marine Biosphere Research project, Future Earth, the Food and Agiculture Organization's Global Strategic Framework, the EU International Ocean Governance Forum, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, and the Nippon Foundation Ocean Nexus Center (of which the authors are a part). This rich portfolio of attempts at linking research to ocean-sustainable development provides a natural experiment for science to assess what kinds of research programs do (or do not) contribute to the SDGs and what underlying theories of change are more promising for future policy iterations. This model of using science to evaluate and test ocean sustainability initiatives, to refine future initiatives (with further evaluation and testing), would effectively operationalize an adaptive management research agenda at a global scale, with sub-global resolution.

As the Ocean Decade begins this year, we urge the international community to reflect on the points raised here and discuss how ocean science and “leave no one behind.” Ocean Decade projects and programs can be usefully informed by the rich scholarship on the role of science in innovation and policy design and implementation and should serve to advance not only biophysical knowledge of the ocean but also how the ocean relates to people and people’s desires, in all their diversity. This will require scientific priorities and questions that are explicitly solution oriented. For example, under what conditions do given institutions, policies, and programs foster human benefits from oceans and contribute to achieving the SDGs?

Finally, because uncertainty will undoubtedly be a defining, and not diminishing, aspect of research, the use of science to evaluate diverse programs operating in complex systems may offer an effective strategy to determine sustainable and equitable solutions when efforts to explain and predict the ocean may not. The development of the Ocean Decade will help determine the course of ocean science beyond the next ten years; we hope the opportunities raised here can help inform planning to ensure that ocean science can promote sustainable ocean development to ensure that no one is left behind.

Our Oceans, Our Future

To conquer the dual, interrelated crises of Covid-19 and climate change we have to start small, and dream big.

Discarded face masks found on Lantau Island in Hong Kong in the spring of 2020.Credit...Anthony Wallace/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

This is an article from Turning Points, a special section that explores what critical moments from this year might mean for the year ahead.

Turning Point: The spread of Covid-19 in 2020 led to dramatic reductions in global carbon dioxide emissions, with one study finding that emissions fell by roughly 1.5 billion metric tons during the first half of the year compared to the same period in 2019 — the largest half-year decline in recorded history.

“No ocean, no life.” Being a Cousteau, this message was practically written into my DNA. And it’s one I’ve tried to share with the world through my many years of work as an environmental advocate.

Unfortunately, given the dire state of our oceans today, it’s clear that the message hasn’t gotten through to most people.

As we reflect on 2020 — one of the most socially and scientifically difficult years in recent memory — and look for ways to move forward, it’s crucial that we understand this simple fact: Without a healthy ocean we will not have a healthy future.

Many of us have experienced the magic and beauty of the ocean. Yet its vital connection to our daily lives — the ways in which it supplies the oxygen we breathe and nourishes the crops we eat — remains far less understood.

I’ve had the challenge — and the privilege — of spending 31 continuous days living in an underwater habitat, which has given me a unique perspective on the intrinsic value of the ocean as our primary life support system. The truth, to paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, is that our planet would more appropriately be called Ocean, not Earth. Without our water, Earth would be just one of billions of lifeless rocks floating in the inky-black void of space.

How can we change our perspective on the ocean as it relates to our planet? We can start by heeding the lessons of 2020. While the coronavirus has caused great suffering and tragedy, it has also shed light on some of the invisible structures that underpin our daily lives, from racial injustice to the extreme disparities in wealth that burden our communities. While these realities have always been plain to some, it took the seismic shifts created by the pandemic for many of us to wake up to them.

The pandemic has also served to remind us of the beauty of nature. As Covid-19 spread across the globe in the spring, prompting nation upon nation to impose strict lockdown measures, the natural world briefly reasserted itself: Cloudy Venetian canals grew clearer. The smog dissipated over the Hollywood Hills. Cars vanished from the roads, leading to a significant, though temporary, drop in carbon dioxide emissions. These developments were encouraging, suggesting that dramatic change was possible, and that there was hope for a greener future after all.

Yet, as the pandemic has continued, it has also caused the use of disposable plastics to skyrocket. Grocery bags and latex gloves fill our trash bins. Discarded face masks flow down the drains of our city streets and into our waterways, potentially harming sea life. Whether we realize it or not, discarded plastics are choking the life out of our ecosystem.

Both environmental pollution and the pandemic share an unnerving trait: The mechanisms and processes that underlie them remain largely invisible to the naked eye. We can’t see the microplastic contaminants we may be ingesting when we eat food from the sea today, just like we can’t see the respiratory droplets of the coronavirus as they pass from person to person. This fact can make these threats feel particularly overwhelming.

But we aren’t alone in these fights. None of us are naturally immune to the virus, or to the effects of pollution and climate change. And we can create real change if we act collectively.

Seemingly small, everyday actions can help combat both pollution and the virus. For example, wearing a washable and reusable mask is an easy way to protect your neighbor’s health and assure that less plastic ends up in the ocean. To protect our waterways further, we should avoid buying consumer goods wrapped in plastic, which will in turn lower the demand for such products.

We live in a closed-loop system. We can’t actually throw things “away.” The plastic we toss in the garbage often just ends up inside the bodies of marine animals, before finding its way back inside of us.

Like my grandfather, Jacques-Yves Cousteau, I believe that we protect what we love, and love what we understand. We have the ability to dictate the magnitude of the coronavirus and climate crises if we can simply absorb the lessons of science, including the hard truth that devastation awaits if we act too late. We must learn that to be on nature’s side is to be on humanity’s side.

Now, more than ever, we need hope. But we can’t just wait around for it; we have to create it.

One way I’m building toward a more hopeful future — and contributing to the effort to find solutions to the pressing problems that confront us — is through the creation of Proteus, intended to be the world’s most advanced underwater research station and habitat. The first in a projected network of Proteus habitats will be located 60 feet below the surface of the Caribbean Sea off the island of Curaçao, and will serve, essentially, as an international space station for ocean exploration, allowing scientists and observers from around the world to live under the sea for weeks or potentially months on end.

Image

A rendering of Fabien Cousteau's Proteus research station, which upon completion will allow scientists to live and work for extended periods of time under the ocean. Concept design by Yves Béhar and fuseproject.Credit...Fabien Cousteau Ocean Learning Center

As they do, they’ll unlock more of the ocean’s secrets. With only roughly 5 percent of Earth’s oceans explored thus far, there is an urgent need, and an ideal opportunity, to better understand how the ocean affects climate change, and what it can teach us about clean energy and food sustainability.

And, of course, there’s the ocean’s astonishing biodiversity. What medical breakthroughs might we stumble upon through the discovery of new species?

The first Proteus habitat, slated for completion in 2023, will feature a video production studio, intended to allow millions of people around the globe a chance to experience the wonders of life under the sea. Through Proteus, more will come to understand the power of our simple message: No ocean, no life.

Every day that we fail to find solutions to the climate crisis is a day that we come closer to losing another species to the ravages of a warming planet. Climate change isn’t going to slow down so that our own priorities can catch up.

Yet I have hope. A research station like Proteus is essential to protecting our waters — and to assuring our future: I believe the marine environment may well contain natural compounds that could help ease this pandemic or the next one.

Historically, in times of extreme crisis, humanity has come together to share ideas, put in place bold solutions and find new ways to survive. Now is the time for similar action. As we look to 2021 and beyond, we must finally take the steps necessary to protect our oceans, relying on science and the power of human ingenuity. Our lives depend on it.

Fabien Cousteau, an aquanaut and environmentalist, is the founder of the Fabien Cousteau Ocean Learning Center.