Welcome to new and largely uncharted maritime space: the Arctic Ocean. Only 2 percent of its waters are charted to international standards, but what is truly uncharted is its rapid transformation.

The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the planet and has been warmer over the past five years than at any time since records began in 1900.1 A warming Arctic is now home to a substantially diminished Greenland ice sheet and polar ice cap, ocean acidification, algae blooms, and dramatic changes to sensitive Arctic ecosystems crucial to sustaining sea life.

Ice Extents in

Watch the ice extent grow and diminish throughout 2018.

  • Median (1981 — 2010)
SOS_Arctic_scroll
CSIS | Data from National Snow and Ice Data Center

Of course, one of the most distinctive features of the Arctic is its sea ice.

Both newer and thinner (young) ice as well as thicker, multi-year (old) ice grows and diminishes, extending to a maximum in the fall and winter months before slowly receding as temperatures warm in the spring and summer (its minimum).

For nearly 40 years, scientists have monitored this ebb and flow.

In 2018, Arctic sea ice extent reached its maximum at 5.59 million square miles, which is the second lowest ever recorded confirming that the Arctic continues to melt on an annual basis and at a record pace.

The four lowest seasonal maxima have all occurred during the last four years.

Record findings are also being reported for summer sea ice extent. This past September, sea ice extent reached an annual minimum of 1.77 million square miles, 629,000 square miles below the 1981 to 2010 median extent. It is the sixth lowest retreat since monitoring began.

Governing an Unchartered Ocean

The Puma operator aboard the U.S. Coast Guard zodiak recovers the small unmanned aircraft after demonstrating its capabilities for detecting oil from the air during Arctic Shield 2013.
The Puma operator aboard the U.S. Coast Guard zodiak recovers the small unmanned aircraft after demonstrating its capabilities for detecting oil from the air during Arctic Shield 2013. NOAA

How do nations effectively govern this rapidly changing ocean? Since 1982, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has governed the international maritime environment. UNCLOS created obligations for safeguarding the marine environment, established norms for activity on the high seas, and founded a legal regime for regulating mineral resource exploitation in deep seabed areas beyond national jurisdiction.

UNCLOS outlined norms for both territorial waters and exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and included provisions to extend a nation’s outer continental shelf. UNCLOS even provided special regulations for human activities in ice-covered waters (Article 234). One hundred sixty-eight parties have ratified the treaty but notably missing from the list is the United States, which views UNCLOS as customary international law.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) also helps govern the maritime environment and in 2014 approved a mandatory Polar Code which sets mandatory standards for ships operating in the polar regions. In force since January 2017, the Polar Code Regulations seek to protect Arctic waters by promoting enhanced safety and environmental standards in Arctic waters through the International Convention for the Safety of Life at SEA (SOLAS) and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships MARPOL).

SOLAS specifies minimum standards for the construction, equipment, and operation of ships at sea, while MARPOL addresses pollution prevention in sensitive marine environments and includes regulations controlling toxic discharges from ships. Amendments have been added to both conventions in recent years to further enhance safety for both seafarers and passengers in an unpredictable environment.2

Most recently, IMO member states renewed efforts to ban the use of heavy fuel oil (HFO) in the Arctic.3 States including Finland, Germany, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the United States have called for a full HFO prohibition on a rapid timetable. One of the dirtiest fossil fuels, HFOs and the impact of soot emissions accelerate sea ice melt and threaten fragile Arctic ecosystems.

At the regional level, the Arctic Council was formed in 1996 as an intergovernmental forum that brings the five Arctic coastal nations together with Arctic nations, and Arctic indigenous communities (called the Permanent Participants) to protect the Arctic environment and support sustainable development.

  • Arctic coastal nations
    • United States
    • Canada
    • Russia
    • Norway
    • Denmark
  • Arctic nations
    • Iceland
    • Sweden
    • Finland

Some of the Council’s most effective bodies are its working groups. The Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) Working Group has produced ground-breaking assessments such as the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA), which led to the creation of the Polar Code. The working group also proposed, in 2015, a framework to preserve Arctic waters through a network of marine protected areas (MPAs) across the circumpolar Arctic.

Marine Protected Areas in the Arctic as defined by the Arctic Council’s working group for the Protection of the Marine Environment
Arctic biodiversity encompasses a vast array of ecosystems and species including marine mammals, seabirds, untouched fish stocks, and pristine benthic habitats – all of which are threatened by the impacts of a changing climate.
Arctic biodiversity encompasses a vast array of ecosystems and species including marine mammals, seabirds, untouched fish stocks, and pristine benthic habitats – all of which are threatened by the impacts of a changing climate.
Arctic biodiversity encompasses a vast array of ecosystems and species including marine mammals, seabirds, untouched fish stocks, and pristine benthic habitats – all of which are threatened by the impacts of a changing climate.
1 of 4 Marine Protected Areas in the Arctic as defined by the Arctic Council’s working group for the Protection of the Marine Environment Based on PAME's 2017 Indicator Report
2 of 4 Arctic biodiversity encompasses a vast array of ecosystems and species including marine mammals, seabirds, untouched fish stocks, and pristine benthic habitats – all of which are threatened by the impacts of a changing climate. Enric Sala/National Geographic
3 of 4 Arctic biodiversity encompasses a vast array of ecosystems and species including marine mammals, seabirds, untouched fish stocks, and pristine benthic habitats – all of which are threatened by the impacts of a changing climate. Enric Sala/National Geographic
4 of 4 Arctic biodiversity encompasses a vast array of ecosystems and species including marine mammals, seabirds, untouched fish stocks, and pristine benthic habitats – all of which are threatened by the impacts of a changing climate. Enric Sala/National Geographic

The rapid loss of sea ice and changes in ocean chemistry increasingly threatens sensitive ecosystems and Arctic biodiversity. Since Arctic life does not recognize international borders, an international network of MPAs across the Arctic would protect marine biodiversity, preserve cultural heritage and subsistence resources, and strengthen marine ecosystem resilience that ultimately underpins human well-being.4

Arctic life does not recognize international borders
An estimated
11.4%
of the Arctic is currently under some form of protected status.

Unfortunately, countries have only embraced national MPAs rather than an integrated approach. Within U.S. waters, federally protected areas include the Arctic Management Area encompassing the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas and the Northern Bering Sea Research Area, just south of the Arctic Circle and the Bering Strait.

An estimated 11.4 percent of the Arctic, or about 3.7 million square kilometers, is currently under some form of protected status but the degree of conservation in these areas can vary widely. PAME has defined Arctic MPAs using the IUCNs general definition of an MPA as “A clearly defined geographical space recognized, dedicated, and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values”.

PAME’s definition is useful for its support of multiple management approaches but it has also been criticized for being overly broad. As a result, PAME’s Arctic MPA estimates includes special management and use areas for fisheries or other resources as well as some that are more fully protected. Most of the U.S. waters included in the estimates represent an array of zones with varying restrictions on fishing, navigation, or other resource use but typically do not restrict all commercial use.

A range of management approaches, including both fully conserved areas and special management zones, are necessary to support sustainable use and development. However, only fully protected areas effectively conserve biodiversity and provide the most direct benefits to ecosystem resilience in the face of climate change.

Charting the Future of Arctic Biodiversity

Despite a lack of progress on supporting a trans-national MPA framework, Arctic and select non-Arctic states have taken some important first steps towards regional action to creatively charter new norms and regulations for managing Arctic biodiversity. Among the most important and recent of these steps is the 2017 Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean. The five Arctic coastal states, led by the United States and Russia, negotiated the outlines of the precautionary fisheries agreement in 2015 before inviting four states—China (the largest fishing nation), Japan, South Korea, Iceland, along with the European Union—that have significant fishing interest in the region, to join the negotiating framework.

Despite there being no known fishing stocks in this area, the agreement creates a Joint Program of Scientific Research and Monitoring, which seeks to develop a greater scientific understanding of the Arctic marine ecosystem in the Central Arctic Ocean. Also known as the “5+5 fisheries agreement,” it places a moratorium on fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean, 40 percent of which is currently open water.5 The moratorium would last for 16 years while scientific research is conducted to better understand whether future fish stocks could be harvested on a sustainable basis. The agreement protects 2.8 million square kilometers of international waters in the Arctic. It will be crucial for signatory states, including the U.S., to support the framework and its scientific mission as both a management tool and to foster the future multi-lateral approaches to resource management.

The ‘high seas’ make up approximately
40%
of the surface of the planet.

Such approaches and philosophical commitment will be required for management and conservation of resources Arctic Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ). ABNJ refers to “the high seas” or those areas of the ocean where no one nation has sole responsibility for management. ABNJs do not fall under any one nation’s jurisdiction and most of the emerging ocean in the melting Arctic falls under this definition.

Globally, ABNJs make up approximately 40 percent of the surface of the planet, comprising 64 percent of the surface of the oceans and nearly 95 percent of its volume. These waters represent the largest and most diverse cache of biodiversity on earth, collectively referred to as Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ).

Around
21,000
species inhabit the Arctic Ocean, including 5,000 animal species.

The high seas of the Central Arctic Ocean might prove to be the most contentious region in the current BBNJ debate. Its marine area totals some 14 million square kilometers, of which 2.8 million square kilometers are the high seas. It is also home to some of the most unique and fragile ecosystems on earth. Around 21,000 species inhabit the Arctic Ocean, including 5,000 animal species such as marine mammals, birds, fish, and other higher organisms; 2,000 types of algae; and tens of thousands of ecologically critical microbes.6

Exclusive Economic Zones and the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction in the Arctic. Note: EEZs are approximate.
Exclusive Economic Zones and the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction in the Arctic. Note: EEZs are approximate. Based on EEZ boundaries from the Arctic Portal

In July 2017, the United Nations agreed that negotiations for an international legally binding instrument on BBNJ (under UNCLOS) should move forward.7 Two of four BBNJ negotiating sessions have concluded to date with the goal having a final agreed document by 2020. The world’s commitment to international norms for marine resource management and conservation will be tested by these negotiations and their outcome. If successful, we have the opportunity to chart a hopeful course for a new ocean.

The Canadian Coast Guard Ship Louis S. St-Laurent trails the Coast Guard Cutter Healy as the two ships work their way farther north to research the floor of the Arctic Ocean Sept. 2, 2009.
The Canadian Coast Guard Ship Louis S. St-Laurent trails the Coast Guard Cutter Healy as the two ships work their way farther north to research the floor of the Arctic Ocean Sept. 2, 2009. Patrick Kelley, U.S. Coast Guard

  1. John Schwartz and Henry Fountain, “Warming in Arctic Raises Fears of a ‘Rapid Unraveling’ of the Region,” New York Times, December 11, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/11/climate/arctic-warming.html. ↩

  2. Heather A. Conley, Matthew Melino, and Andreas Osthagen, Maritime Futures: The Arctic and the Bering Strait Region (Washington, D.C.: CSIS, 2017), https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/171027_Conley_MaritimeFutures_Web.pdf?mHPGy0uKqRMcek0zw6av5jI332MeELk5. ↩

  3. MAREX, “IMO Moves Towards Ban on HFO in the Arctic,” The Maritime Executive, April 13, 2018, https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/imo-moves-towards-ban-on-hfo-in-the-arctic. ↩

  4. Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) and the Arctic Council, Framework for a Pan-Arctic Network of Marine Protected Areas (The Arctic Council, 2015), https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/417. ↩

  5. Levon Sevunts, Radio Canada International, “Arctic nations and fishing powers sign ‘historic’ agreement on fishery,” The Barents Observer, December 1, 2017, https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/ecology/2017/12/arctic-nations-and-fishing-powers-sign-historic-agreement-fishery. ↩

  6. Kamrul Hossain, “Arctic Marine Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction: Framing A Legally Binding MPA Regime?” American Society of International Law 20, no. 14 (August 2016), https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/20/issue/14/arctic-marine-biodiversity-areas-beyond-national-jurisdiction-framing. ↩

  7. “Countries agree to recommend elements for new treaty on marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction,” United Nations, July 24, 2017, https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2017/07/countries-agree-to-recommend-elements-for-new-treaty-on-marine-biodiversity-of-areas-beyond-national-jurisdiction/. ↩