Arctic Protection

• Protection of the Arctic marine environment includes restrictions of human activities, such as through Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). MPAs are area-based management tools defined by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 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” (IUCN WCPA 2018). MPAs generally limit or prohibit human activities within their boundaries and individual MPAs vary in their level of protection. Arctic MPAs have diverse objectives, locations, sizes, and outcomes (PAME 2021). 

• The climate benefits of MPAs are still uncertain. So far MPAs have not been proven to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, and MPAs will not change temperature trajectories. Offshore oil and gas bans may prevent further carbon emissions and protect benthic habitats. Restrictions on boating traffic from commercial fishing and shipping may keep ice intact, although this link has yet to be researched.  

• The ecological benefits of MPAs are well-established (Lester et al. 2009, Sullivan-Stack et al. 2022), in addition to benefits to communities and fisheries (Goñi et al. 2010, Ban et al. 2019). MPAs can enhance adaptive capacity of populations and ecosystems (Kroeker et al. 2019) and confer resilience to climatic disturbances by reducing multiple stressors (Micheli et al. 2012). MPAs in the Arctic may help address the impacts of climate change by protecting coastlines and coastal communities from storm impacts via habitat buffers and protecting climate refugia (PAME 2021). They may also protect carbon-storing habitats (PAME 2021) and protect carbon stored in the seafloor from disturbance (Sala et al. 2021), but the magnitude of this co-benefit is still poorly understood (Hiddink et al. 2023, Ovando et al. 2023). Networks of MPAs may also help protect migratory species (PAME 2021).  

• Protecting marine ecosystems in the Arctic now will be important to safeguard ecosystems and promote resilience as other strategies are implemented to decrease temperatures and reverse the loss of Arctic sea ice.  

• As Arctic sea ice continues to melt, Arctic marine ecosystems will come under increased threats from improved access to marine resources and shipping routes (Harris et al. 2017; although current changes in sea ice have reduced the shipping season in some areas (Cook et al. 2024)). Even if protecting areas within the Arctic does not directly affect sea ice or climate change trajectories, protection is vital to protect Arctic habitats and ensure sustainable use of marine resources (Harris et al. 2017).  

• Global Choices has proposed the Central Arctic Ocean Ice Shield Moratorium, a 10-year prohibition of oil and gas exploration and extraction, deep sea mining, seismic testing, nuclear weapons testing, radioactive waste dumping, and new shipping lanes. The Moratorium is to prevent activities that will accelerate and intensify sea ice loss and climate change. They are also calling for the Central Arctic Ocean Ice Shield to be managed as a non-jurisdictional Global Commons. 

• Arctic MPAs have diverse objectives, locations, sizes, and outcomes (PAME 2021). In general, MPAs may protect ecosystems by preventing certain human activities such as disruption of the sea floor, extractive activities, and disruption due to shipping.  

• Varies, global target is for 30% of marine areas to be protected by 2030 (United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Target 3) 

• • In total, only 5.24% of the Arctic marine area (935,778 km²) is currently protected (CAFF/PAME 2022).

• • Arctic marine area is estimated to be 18.4 million km² in size (CAFF/PAME 2022); 30% of that area is 5.5 million km².  

• • Protection of the Central Arctic Ocean Ice Shield would cover most of the Central Arctic Ocean.

• Ocean surface to benthos 

• Ocean areas within the Arctic region 

• MPAs have so far not been proven as an approach to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice.
• For the goal of protecting biodiversity, protection is effective all year, with other potential co-benefits.

Impact on

• Unlikely to have an impact 

• Global  

• • Unlikely to have an impact 

• • • Protecting blue carbon species and the seafloor within MPAs globally may avoid CO₂ emissions, protect stored carbon from being disturbed/released, and add to carbon removal by these ecosystems (Jankowska et al. 2022). However, the analysis in this study was not Arctic-specific. Also, the magnitude of this co-benefit is still poorly understood (Hiddink et al. 2023, Ovando et al. 2023). 

• Arctic region  

• •  Unlikely to have an impact 

• • • Protecting blue carbon species and the seafloor within MPAs globally may avoid CO₂ emissions, protect stored carbon from being disturbed/released, and add to carbon removal by these ecosystems (Jankowska et al. 2022). However, the analysis in this study was not Arctic-specific. Also, the magnitude of this co-benefit is still poorly understood (Hiddink et al. 2023, Ovando et al. 2023). 

• Global  

• • Unlikely to have an impact 

• Arctic region  

• • Unlikely to have an impact 

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?  
  • Unknown 
• New or old ice? 
  • Unknown 
• Impact on sea ice 
  • Unknown 

Scalability  

• Can be scaled  
  • A review by the Arctic Council is underway to determine contributions from Other Effective Conservation Measures (OECMs) in the Arctic. OECMs are “a geographically defined area other than a protected area, which is governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in-situ conservation of biodiversity, with associated ecosystem functions and services and where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socioeconomic, and other locally relevant values.” (PAME 2021). OECMs include areas conserved by Indigenous peoples (Lalonde 2022).  

• Unlikely to have a climate impact 

• Unknown
  • Global target is for 30% of marine areas to be protected by 2030.

• Unlikely to have a global climate impact 

• Unlikely to have an Arctic region climate impact 

Cost 

• $850,000-$2.8 million USD for establishment of MPAs to reach 30% protection goal (The Nature Conservancy 2022).
• Annual management costs $17-36 million USD (The Nature Conservancy 2022).
• Benefits are estimated to be 30% more than costs if the 30% protection goal is achieved (The Nature Conservancy 2022).

• Protected areas may contribute to CO₂ removal and emissions reductions (Jankowska et al. 2022). 

• 9 – Marine protected areas are a well-established tool for protecting biodiversity. However, they may not be able to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice.  

• Technically feasible for protecting biodiversity, climate benefits vary. 

Physical and chemical changes  

• Co-benefits 

• • Protection of habitat.

• • Protection of stored carbon in blue carbon and seafloor ecosystems (Jankowska et al. 2022).

• • Potential for carbon removal through protection of blue carbon species (Jankowska et al. 2022). See Ocean Visions’ blue carbon road map for more information on the potential for blue carbon to contribute to carbon dioxide removal.  

• • Potential for avoided carbon emissions through protection of blue carbon and seafloor ecosystems (Jankowska et al. 2022).

• Risks 

• • Unlikely to have risks.

Impacts on species 

• Co-benefits  

• • Increased biomass of species (Lester et al. 2009).

• • Reduction of stressors to species.

• Risks  

• • Note: There are no ecological risks to MPAs – it is a no-regrets strategy ecologically.

Impacts on ecosystem 

• Co-benefits  

• • Increased biomass (Lester et al. 2009, Nowakowski et al. 2023).

• • Reduction of stressors to ecosystems.

• Risks  

• • Note: There are no ecological risks to MPAs – it is a no-regrets strategy ecologically.

Impacts on society  

• Co-benefits  

• • Increased biomass of commercially important species (Nowakowski et al. 2023).

• • Highly protected MPAs are associated with increased income (Nowakowski et al. 2023).

• • Highly protected MPAs are associated with increased food security (Nowakowski et al. 2023).

• • Provide reference sites for comparison to unprotected sites useful for learning and management (Wilson et al. 2020). 

• • Potential for benefits to fisheries (Wilson et al. 2020). 

• • Protection from storms and sea level rise (The Ocean Conservancy 2020). 

• Risks  

• • Potential for less access for people to marine resources.

• • Potential for decreased income and employment through the limitation of activities (Jankowska et al. 2022).

• • Conflict between ocean uses (Jankowska et al. 2022).

• • Could restrict freedom of the sea for MPAs established beyond national jurisdiction (Argüello 2021).

Ease of reversibility  

• Easy

Risk of termination shock  

• No risk

• National and international jurisdiction depending on location of marine protected area 

• National 

• • MPAs established within national jurisdiction are established and managed nationally. 

• • For a recent review of MPAs and OECMs see Lalonde 2022.
  • Canada is working to protect 30% of its oceans (and lands) by 2030, and many of its protected or conserved areas are co-managed with Indigenous Peoples (Government of Canada 2024).
• Arctic-scale
  • Current MPA coverage in the Arctic is reviewed in CAFF and PAME’s “Trends for Arctic Conservation Measures”.

• • The protection and sustainable use of the Arctic marine environment (PAME) working group of the Arctic Council addresses MPAs, however, pan-Arctic collaboration within the Arctic Council is currently difficult given the lack of participation from all parties (Argüello 2021). A 2015 PAME document provides a framework for a Pan-Arctic Network of MPAs. During 2021-2023 PAME was to assess the need to update the framework.  

• • Indigenous-led management 

• • • In 2023 the governments of Canada and Greenland signed a letter of intent for cooperation in management of Pikialasorsuaq, a unique and important area between Greenland Canada’s eastern Arctic territory of Nunavut. This letter of intent is in line with the 2017 Pikialasorsuaq Commission report that recommends establishing an Inuit-led management plan for the area.
    • The Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) currently manages and protects the Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area in northern Canada (QIA 2024), and they have proposed the establishment of additional marine protected areas in the region (QIA 2022).
• Treaties
  • The Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ Treaty) establishes a mechanism for establishing new MPAs in waters beyond national jurisdiction, which includes the Central Arctic Ocean.  

• • Some areas of the Arctic within the North-East Atlantic are already included in the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (“OSPAR Convention”) which also provides a mechanism for establishing MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction and consolidating MPAs in the region into a network.  

• • There is currently a voluntary ban on commercial fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean High Seas, the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean, otherwise known as the Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement (CAOFA). Signatories include Canada, the People’s Republic of China, the Kingdom of Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland), the European Union, Iceland, Japan, the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United States of America. It will remain in effect until 2037. 

• Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions. 
• Distributive justice  

• • The costs of implementing MPAs in the Arctic area will be largely focused on those who partake in activities restricted by the MPA. MPAs could also provide benefits for people living near the MPA through increased fishery benefits and opportunities to advance tourism associated with the MPA.  

• • In the Arctic, establishment of protected areas can place a disproportionate burden on Indigenous communities. Previous conservation efforts in the Arctic have led to forced removal and exclusion of Indigenous peoples and caused erasure of Indigenous ways of life (Buschman and Sudlovenick 2022).  

• • Indigenous-led management and conservation areas will be critical to distributive justice. Recent efforts to protect marine areas in the Arctic, such as the intent for management of Pikialasorsuaq and the designation of Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area in Canada highlight the leadership of Indigenous peoples in Arctic conservation (Buschman 2022). 

• • • The 2022 Status and Trends for Arctic Conservation Measures report by the CAFF and PAME working groups of the Arctic Council states that “the role of Indigenous sustainable management practices, including Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas, and other Indigenous stewardship measures, and their contribution to effective marine stewardship will be explored in the Arctic context through this project, and could be expanded upon in future work by the Arctic Council”.

• Procedural justice  

• • Procedural justice will vary by nation and the context of MPA implementation.  

• • Implementing the co-productive conservation framework outlined in Buschman (2022) is a way to ensure affected people have the opportunity to participate and partner at all stages of conservation. It includes co-planning, co-prioritizing, co-learning, co-managing, co-delivering, and co-assessing (Buschman 2022).  

• Restorative justice  

• • Restorative justice will vary by nation and context of MPA implementation. 

• • There are examples globally of compensation programs that provide a social safety net for financial losses due to the cessation of extractive activities (Center for American Progress 2019).  

• • Indigenous-led management and conservation areas in the Arctic may fulfill outcomes of protection while also allowing for traditional use and stewardship of resources. 

• Will vary by nation and context of MPA implementation 
  • In general, public engagement in MPA governance has increased over time.  

• • On a Pan-Arctic level, a principle of the PAME 2015 Framework for a Pan-Arctic Network of MPAs is to ensure openness and transparency of the MPA network planning processes, emphasize the benefits of marine conservation, and encourage public support. Enhancing public awareness is also one of the four goals of the pan-Arctic MPA network. There has not been an update to this document to know if this goal is being met.  
• Generally high public support 
  • A public opinion poll about MPAs in Canada reported 97% support for MPAs (Environics Research 2019).

• Protected area implementation in the Arctic has historically excluded Indigenous peoples, but today many Arctic conservation efforts are led by Indigenous peoples (Buschman 2022). The rights and sovereignty of Indigenous people are recognized and mentioned in documents supporting existing governance mechanisms mentioned above. 
• The Inuit Circumpolar Council has several documents that provide guidance for working with Arctic Indigenous people in marine protection efforts including: 
  • Food sovereignty and self-governance: Inuit role in managing Arctic marine resources (ICC Alaska 2020)
  • Ethical and Equitable Engagement Synthesis Report (ICC 2021) 

• Is there potential for protected areas specifically in the Arctic to have climate benefits? 

• Does limiting shipping activity have an impact on Arctic sea ice extent?  

• Would protecting regions from shipping traffic impact albedo?  

• • Does icebreaking increase ice cover because it exposes more surface area? Is that ice then younger and darker, decreasing albedo?  

• How can MPAs be enforced in remote areas? 

• How can a pan-Arctic network of MPAs move forward given current limitations of the Arctic Council?  

• Determine if there are potential climate impacts of Arctic MPAs, in particular for Arctic sea ice.  

• Determine the relationship between shipping activity and Arctic sea ice extent, with respect to breaking up sea ice.

• Implement an interconnected, transboundary, pan-Arctic MPA network to protect the globally unique marine Arctic area (Harris et al. 2017).

• Further development of what priorities look like in different places for different actors will be needed.