��ҹѰ��

by ��ҹѰ�� Director Prof Nick Owens 

The best ideas come when we step away from an issue. For me, taking a break outside, preferably near the coast, is my thinking place. On an early morning swim in the fresh, clear waters of the sea near the Slate Islands of the west coast of Scotland, I had one of my very best ideas. Even better, as Director of Scotland’s oldest marine science research centre, I can make it happen. That idea is to put “The Ocean” on our board. Last September, our Trustees agreed.

The Scottish Association for Marine Science (��ҹѰ��) is a 140-year-old marine science research charity, based near Oban, a picturesque coastal town and a jumping off point for ferries to the stunningly beautiful Isles of Mull, Iona and others beyond.

We believe that electing the Ocean to be a Trustee of ��ҹѰ�� is 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 It challenges outdated models of governance and champions a future where the ocean’s voice is central to decision-making. That the Ocean should be represented in our governance might seem, at first blush, to be a gimmick, even whimsical. We are conscious that the move could be seen as trivial or 'greenwashing'. After all, as a non-profit marine research organisation, surely ��ҹѰ�� always has the best interests of the Ocean in mind?

But after several months of careful discussion and debate, the Trustees are convinced that even with a strong empathy for ocean conservation and a well-informed understanding of marine environmental matters, our decision-making is essentially anthropocentric; human interests are given precedence, and concern is limited to the impact on the Ocean rather than the interests of the Ocean.

This approach is near universal. Take, for example, the major global research initiative proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in 2017: .  The “strapline” for this Ocean Decade reads “The Science we need for the Ocean we want”; the pronoun “we” is telling.  The ten “Ocean Decade Challenges for collective impact” that make up the project are wholly worthy and ambitious, and no-one would argue with their content and sentiment. But going beyond the metaphor of the “Ocean on the Board”, would the Ocean have constructed these Challenges in the same way?  Some have ocean-centric ambitions, at least in part, but the majority are clearly anthropocentric. No criticism of the UN Ocean Decade is implied, on the contrary it is a magnificent initiative that has mobilised the international marine science community in a way not seen before. However, it is typical of the focus of even the best-intentioned of ambitions in which human interests invariably have priority.

The Ocean is arguably the planet’s most vital natural asset. Covering nearly 75% of Earth’s surface (and more than 95% of the living space, when depth is considered), it regulates the climate, provides oxygen, sustains biodiversity, and underpins the livelihoods of millions of people. Yet, human activities have pushed it to the brink. Rising temperatures, acidification, plastic pollution, and unsustainable fishing practices have and continue to disrupt marine ecosystems at an alarming rate.  These human activities are to a significant degree controlled by decisions taken in boardrooms, even in the most enlightened of which the drivers are anthropocentric and financial.

Although ��ҹѰ�� is a charity, with a deep concern for the health and well-being of the ocean, we are also a business with over 160 employees and around 200 students who rely on us. We must make our own financial way, just as any other company, and our Board has behaved rather like any other. However, we now wish to challenge the paradigm of the conventional boardroom by genuinely seeking a different way. A way where we formalise the idea that the Ocean is not merely a passive resource, but an entity deserving of advocacy, with a voice and with influence at the table, and where we can still balance the potentially conflicting commercial demands of running a business. 

The Ocean is clearly a metaphor in this context and cannot represent itself in human terms. So, we are constructing the legal means by which its interests can be advocated by a designated individual or group: academics, conservationists, or experts specialising in oceanic issues and laws. This advocate will ensure that the Ocean’s needs are given at least equal weight to all others in our decisions and strategies, especially in deciding from whom we will accept funding. We currently have an ethical policy that guides our decision-making, but this is based on conventional norms. We anticipate that taking an ocean-centric perspective will lead to different outcomes. We recognise that if followed genuinely this approach could result in poorer short-term financial performance. However, the commitment is to accept a balance between possible short-term sacrifice for longer-term benefit, but not necessarily financial. This balance will most likely lead to less certainty, with a need to reflect this in a changed business strategy. We are also examining changes required in our governing Articles of Association to ensure there are no conflicts of interest for the “Ocean trustee”.

Electing an “Ocean trustee” is not merely a practical step; it is a philosophical statement. It challenges anthropocentric models of governance that prioritise human interests over the natural world. Instead, it recognises that humans are part of nature and not separate from it. Indeed, humanity’s survival, including all its societal structures, are dependent on the health of the planet’s ecosystems. This philosophy is deeply rooted in many indigenous cultures that have long-regarded nature as a partner, rather than a commodity. It mirrors legal innovations, such as the recognition that  rivers and ecosystems have legal “personhood” in countries such as and . The Scottish company for natural household and beauty products, , has already taken the step of electing Nature to its Board.  These developments represent a growing movement to redefine the relationship between human systems and the natural world. 

We hope that our example will help to inspire a broader movement, perhaps first in the environmental charity sector. Given the pervasive impact of the decisions of corporate boards and policymaking bodies, embedding ecological considerations into the heart of these decisions could have a profound effect. In an era of ecological crisis, this bold move is not just symbolic, it is essential. By giving the Ocean a seat at the table, ��ҹѰ�� acknowledges its profound debt to this life-sustaining entity. More importantly, it signals a commitment to the Ocean not just for today, but for generations to come.

Professor Nicholas Owens is Director of the Scottish Association for Marine Science and Vice-Principal for Research and Innovation at UHI (University of the Highlands and Islands), and a former Director of the British Antarctic Survey and the Plymouth Marine Laboratory.