We propose the OEI—a rapid yet robust approach for assessing the extent to which ocean equity is addressed in the governance and management of initiatives across ocean sectors and scales — and illustrate the utility of the index through six case studies. The OEI offers a consistent and measurable definition of ocean equity. The criteria are based on foundational theories from the environmental justice, conservation governance and ecosystem services literatures. By clarifying critical elements of equity, the OEI creates a common set of variables and vocabulary for planning, monitoring, evaluation and research, applicable from local projects to global strategies. The index is the first standardized tool for evaluating ocean equity, providing numerical scores, qualitative comments and identifying next steps to help decision-makers with understanding equity gaps. In developing the index, we addressed three major challenges: (1) inconsistent understanding of social equity and how to assess it in ocean initiatives9,17; (2) limited capacity for time and resource-intensive equity assessment18; and (3) a lack of actionable recommendations to effectively advance ocean equity19.
Going forward, we envisage the OEI as a practical, flexible tool that can be adapted and improved upon by a broad range of users at different scales. We are hopeful that Indigenous Peoples and local communities can tailor and use the OEI to assess (in)equity of initiatives that affect them, and, if necessary, hold implementers of ocean initiatives to account. To ensure robustness and boost learning, it would be useful for researchers to apply the framework in a wider range of case studies. Practitioners and funders could apply the OEI to gather baseline data: as criteria to screen funding applications, to promote best practices for equity in the design of new ocean initiatives, to design better social safeguards and to ensure that equity is monitored throughout the life of a project. Governments could use the OEI to report on national commitments to equity. At the international scale, there is a need for a few high-level ocean equity indicators to allow for reporting of national progress against pre-existing commitments, such as the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs), the new Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the forthcoming benefit-sharing mechanism of the BBNJ agreement. The UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs—which acts as the secretariat for the SDGs—might adopt the OEI to help facilitate better engagement with notions of equity, as SDG 14 is limited in its focus to equity in the distribution of resource access and benefits.
As with any assessment framework or tool, the OEI has limitations that should be considered by those using the index and its data. First, scoring relies on human perceptions and judgement, introducing subjectivity and potential bias, especially if organizations self-monitor their ocean initiatives35. To reduce bias or power imbalances, assessments should ideally be completed by independent third parties, multi-actor focus group discussions, or by those directly affected by the initiative (for example, Indigenous Peoples and local communities). When this is not possible, evaluations can stem from multiple assessors, and agreement among assessors can be evaluated with the Kendall’s coefficient of concordance, as was done here for Canada’s DFO Maritimes ecosystems-based management framework.
Second, creating an index condenses extensive information into a few categories. We limited the OEI to twelve criteria to balance complexity with ease of use; however, universal criteria may oversimplify the complexity of equity across diverse policy realms and contexts, as well as local perspectives on what constitutes equitable ocean initiatives36. To address this limitation, in-depth assessments of equity might be used as a complement to the OEI by providing richer descriptions of equity and contextualizing its findings22.
Third, the OEI criteria are all input and process indicators, which makes it an appropriate tool for assessing equity in the governance and management of an ocean initiative. The OEI does not assess the outcomes of an initiative or the efficacy of particular criteria (for example, whether a mitigation mechanism is effective); however, we contend that when an OEI score is high, the likelihood of achieving positive outcomes for both people and nature increases.
Fourth, we recognize that different national contextual factors (for example, political factors, economic factors, environmental policies or socio-economic conditions) may condition or shape the ability of initiatives to enhance ocean equity—even when these initiatives embody the necessary ingredients to promote equitable processes and outcomes37. We therefore suggest that if one wants to assess an initiative that applies in two or more countries, one would need to do an assessment in each, and also encourage building on the ocean equity assessments through exploring whether and how national contexts enable or undermine the ability to promote equity within governance and management.
Finally, ocean equity can also be impacted by external factors. For instance, climate change can reinforce existing inequity, exacerbate vulnerability and undermine the success of coastal initiatives11. Using the OEI to advance equity at the nexus of joint policy goals can help to increase effective adaptation to climate change19.