The Asia-Pacific is experiencing an unprecedented transformation in ocean governance.
Governments across the region are expanding marine protected areas, investing in blue carbon initiatives, deploying digital fisheries monitoring systems and positioning the ocean as a cornerstone of climate resilience and economic growth.
The momentum was on full display at the Our Ocean 2026 Conference in Mombasa, Kenya, where more than 100 governments, businesses and civil society organizations announced 320 commitments worth $6.4 billion to marine conservation, sustainable fisheries, climate resilience and blue economy development.
The scale of the ambition is extraordinary. What was once seen primarily as an environmental agenda has evolved into a strategic economic project. Marine ecosystems are increasingly valued not only for their biodiversity, but also for their role in carbon sequestration, food security, renewable energy and geopolitical influence.
Yet amid this enthusiasm for blue growth, one fundamental question remains largely unanswered: Who benefits from the blue economy?
The answer may determine whether the region’s oceanic transition becomes a model for sustainable development or a new source of social and political tension.
More valuable than ever
The Asia-Pacific contains some of the world’s most productive fisheries, the largest mangrove forests and the most diverse marine ecosystems. It is also home to hundreds of millions of people whose livelihoods depend directly on coastal and marine resources.
As climate change intensifies and global demand for sustainable investment increases, ocean space is becoming increasingly valuable. Governments are now expected to simultaneously expand marine conservation, support fisheries production, develop offshore renewable energy, protect biodiversity, attract blue finance and meet climate mitigation targets.
The result is a new competition for ocean resources.
Marine protected areas, or MPAs, are expanding under the Global Biodiversity Framework’s commitment to protect 30% of the world’s land and oceans by 2030 – the so-called “30×30” target.
Blue carbon projects are attracting increasing climate finance as investors seek carbon credits generated by mangrove and seagrass restoration. Offshore wind projects are spreading across East Asia. Digital monitoring systems are transforming fisheries governance from Indonesia to Taiwan and South Korea.
Individually, these initiatives are widely supported. Yet collectively they are reshaping who has access to the ocean and under what conditions. This is where the concept of blue justice comes into the conversation.
Blue justice
Blue justice challenges the assumption that environmental sustainability automatically leads to social sustainability.
The concept emerged from growing concerns among fisheries researchers, development practitioners and coastal communities that the benefits of the blue economy are often unevenly distributed.
While conservation organizations, investors, governments and large industries often gain influence within emerging ocean governance frameworks, small-scale fishers often remain marginalized from decision-making processes.
This concern is particularly important in the Asia-Pacific, where small-scale fisheries support food security and livelihoods for millions of people. According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, about 600 million people worldwide depend at least in part on fishing and aquaculture for their livelihoods, with a significant concentration in Asia.
However, many discussions of the blue economy continue to prioritize investment flows, conservation objectives and technological innovation, paying relatively little attention to issues of access, participation and equity.
The issue is not whether marine conservation or climate action should happen. The question is whether the communities most dependent on marine resources are able to meaningfully participate in shaping these transitions.
Protected waters
One of the most ambitious global conservation goals is to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030.
Across the Pacific, governments and conservation organizations have embraced this goal. New marine protected areas have been declared or expanded in several regions, while international funding increasingly supports large-scale marine protection initiatives.
From a biodiversity perspective, the rationale is compelling. Marine protected areas can help restore fish stocks, protect vulnerable species and improve ecosystem resilience to climate change.
However, conservation success is not measured by ecological indicators alone.
Many coastal communities depend on access to fishing grounds that have provided livelihoods for generations. Restrictions imposed without meaningful consultation can generate resentment, reduce compliance and ultimately undermine conservation objectives.
Recent discussions about large marine protected areas in parts of the Pacific have highlighted this tension. While conservation advocates emphasize the ecological benefits, local stakeholders often ask a different question: Who decides which areas are protected, and who bears the economic costs?
The challenge is not unique to the Pacific Islands. Similar debates are emerging across Southeast Asia and parts of East Asia as governments expand commitments to marine conservation.
Without community legitimacy, conservation risks becoming politically fragile.
Future resource conflict
If marine protected areas represent one governance challenge, blue carbon may represent another.
Asia-Pacific hosts some of the largest blue carbon ecosystems in the world. Mangrove forests in Southeast Asia and coastal wetlands across the Pacific are increasingly attracting international climate finance because of their ability to absorb and store carbon. Governments and development institutions are investing heavily in restoration projects as part of broader climate mitigation strategies.
However, blue carbon raises difficult questions. If carbon stored in mangroves gains financial value, who owns that value – governments, investors, conservation organizations or local communities?
These questions remain unresolved in many jurisdictions. Without clear benefit-sharing mechanisms, there is a risk that blue carbon projects will repeat historical patterns of resource extraction in which external actors capture economic benefits while local communities face new constraints on resource access.
Blue carbon should not become another example of conservation for global gain, but local sacrifice.
The capital of the blue economy
Asia-Pacific is poised to become the world’s leading blue economy region.
Its governments are investing in conservation, digital governance, climate adaptation and marine innovation on a scale unmatched elsewhere.
However, the success of these initiatives will not be ultimately determined by the number of hectares protected, the volume of carbon credits generated or the amount of blue finance mobilized.
These metrics matter, but the more important question is whether coastal communities experience greater security, stronger participation, and improved livelihoods as a result of these transformations.
The region does not face a choice between conservation and development, nor does it face a choice between climate action and economic growth.
The real challenge is to ensure that the transition to a sustainable ocean economy remains socially legitimate. Blue justice is not an obstacle to the blue economy – it may be the only way to ensure its long-term success.
Yogi Putranto is the head of the Fisheries Intelligence and Surveillance Team, Cilacap Marine Surveillance and Fisheries Resource Station, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Republic of Indonesia.
