Opinion | The Digital Ocean Economy: Promise and Peril in South Korea's Vision for Sustainable Seas
The tenth Our Ocean Conference in Busan this April carried with it an ambitious mandate. Alongside the perennial challenges of marine pollution, climate change, and biodiversity loss, South Korea elevated a newer priority to centre stage: Digital Oceans. The concept, which marries ocean industries with digital technology to drive sustainable management, represents a compelling vision for addressing some of the ocean’s most pressing governance failures. Yet behind this technological optimism lies a more complicated reality — one where innovation alone cannot substitute for equitable institutions, capacity-building, and genuine commitment to inclusion.
The appeal of digital solutions for ocean management is immediately apparent. Satellite surveillance systems, artificial intelligence, and real-time monitoring platforms now offer unprecedented visibility into ocean activities. Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) and Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) track fishing vessels globally, while AI-powered cameras can identify fish species instantaneously, replace laborious manual monitoring, and detect illegal activity with minimal human intervention. SeaCras, a Croatian startup, deployed satellite imagery and AI to identify oil spills, pollution events, and illegal fishing in real-time — detecting an oil spill near Hvar port in April 2025 that authorities could then address swiftly. Similarly, platforms like Global Fishing Watch have democratised access to vessel tracking data, exposing the “dark fleet” of vessels that deliberately switch off their transponders to hide illicit activities.
South Korea's Blue Action Plan, announced at the Busan conference, committed nearly $950 million to strengthen fisheries management through “science and data-based management tools and innovative digital technologies.” This investment signals recognition that the ocean economy's future depends on technological infrastructure. For developing nations with limited enforcement capacity, digital tools offer a scalable alternative to expensive coast guard patrols. The promise is seductive: transparency at scale, accountability without borders, and sustainability through data-driven decisions.
But a promise is not a delivery. Three critical risks lurk beneath the Digital Oceans narrative.
First, the data governance crisis. Digital ocean systems generate enormous quantities of data — much of it sensitive, contested, or strategically valuable. Fishing companies hoard operational data that could illuminate unsustainable practices; governments restrict Vessel Monitoring Systems data within their exclusive economic zones; and even open platforms like Global Fishing Watch acknowledge significant gaps in coverage due to geopolitical constraints and technological blind spots. UNESCO’s recent analysis of data governance across 69 countries found that regulatory frameworks are fragmented, developing nations lack capacity to participate in data decisions, and AI systems trained on biased datasets risk perpetuating historical inequities. The question becomes: who controls ocean data, who benefits from its insights, and who bears the cost of surveillance? Without robust international frameworks for data sharing, interoperability, and ethics, digital oceans risk becoming tools of control rather than stewardship—where wealthy nations and corporations extract knowledge from shared waters while coastal communities and small-scale fishers remain on the margins.
Second, the equity paradox. The OECD has documented a persistent pattern in ocean governance: developing countries, small island states, and coastal communities are insufficiently included in the decision-making processes that shape ocean policy, yet they bear the largest share of ocean-related climate and economic risks. Digital technology, for all its sophistication, does not solve this representation crisis. In fact, it risks exacerbating it. The cost of advanced satellite monitoring, AI systems, and data infrastructure is prohibitive for many developing nations. Capacity gaps are severe; countries require foundational governance structures, technical expertise, and financial resources that simply do not exist in many places. Meanwhile, the benefits of digital systems — improved enforcement, market access through traceability, competitive advantage in the blue economy — flow disproportionately to wealthier nations and large enterprises. Ocean Equity frameworks emphasise that a sustainable ocean economy must “promote equal opportunity for people to benefit” and “support fair distribution of benefits,” yet digital transformation, as currently conceived, threatens to widen rather than close these gaps.
Third, the accountability vacuum. Surveillance technologies create the illusion of control but not necessarily accountability. Synthetic aperture radar satellites can detect 75% of fishing vessels not broadcasting AIS, yet this surveillance capacity does not automatically translate into enforcement action, prosecution, or justice for affected communities. AI systems are notorious for opacity and bias; they make decisions through mechanisms that even their designers struggle to explain, yet they increasingly determine which vessels are flagged as suspicious, which regions are prioritised for protection, and which fisheries practices are deemed compliant. Without transparent, contestable, and locally grounded accountability mechanisms, digital oceans become instruments of technocratic management divorced from the lived realities and rights of ocean-dependent communities. The risk is a surveillance state masquerading as sustainability.
(Ajay Sawant is a science communicator and the president of ThinkOcean Society)
