Securing a Resilient Arctic Ocean

March 3, 2026

As the High Seas Treaty entered into force January 2026, attention is turning to how area-based conservation measures can strengthen management of a rapidly changing Arctic Ocean and preserve its future economic, cultural and ecological value.

By: Pernille Haukås / Arctic Council Secretariat

The Arctic marine environment is experiencing rapid change, with implications for biodiversity, food security, and the cultural well-being of many Arctic communities. As sea ice conditions change, parts of the Arctic Ocean are becoming more accessible to a range of human activities, such as shipping, fisheries, and resource extraction. These developments underscore the importance of continued cooperation and knowledge-based approaches to ensure conservation and sustainable use of marine ecosystems.

On 17 January 2026, the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ), often referred to as the High Seas Treaty, entered into force. Increasing attention is now paid to area-based conservation measures and how they can contribute to the protection of a rapidly changing Arctic Ocean.

While not all Arctic States have ratified the agreement, its entry into force establishes a new global framework for area-based conservation in areas beyond national jurisdiction, including parts of the Arctic Ocean.

“Protecting our most vulnerable Arctic ecosystems is essential to support future growth in the region” Lis Lindal Jørgensen, Senior Scientist at the Institute of Marine Research in Norway and Co-lead of the Ecosystem Approach Expert Group under the Arctic Council’s Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment Working Group (PAME).

Importance of Arctic marine governance

Through the Arctic Council, States, Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations and Observers collaborate to advance its marine conservation efforts. In the Romssa-Tromsø Statement from May 2025, all eight Arctic States reaffirmed the importance of Arctic marine governance and the protection of the Arctic marine environment.

Area Based Conservation Measures, including Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs), and Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs), form part of a growing conservation toolbox aimed at safeguarding ecological and culturally significant areas, to make the region more resilient.

A conservation toolbox

Marine area-based conservation measures include a range of complementary approaches, sometimes referred to as a “toolbox.”

MPAs are one of the most established and widely used area based conservation measures. MPAs are geographically defined marine areas which are designated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives (see Definition Box). MPAs are clearly defined areas that are legally designated and managed to achieve specific conservation goals. While some MPAs are strict “no-take zones” where extractive activities such as fishing and mining are prohibited, most MPAs in the Arctic allow for multiple human uses and interaction. Classified according to their management objectives, MPAs can range from strict nature reserves to areas supporting sustainable use of natural resources.

The Arctic Council’s Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment Working Group (PAME) created an MPA-Network Toolbox, which provides guidance to assist Arctic States in advancing their MPA networks. It provides theory and tools that can be used to ssess and protect the diversity of species, populations, habitats and more, as well as their interactions and processes and the ability to adapt to change. This guidance is intended to inform decision-makers, practitioners, Indigenous Peoples and stakeholders involved in developing conservational networks in the marine Arctic.

New approaches are broadening the toolbox. OECMs represent a complementary approach to MPAs. While conservation may not be the primary objective of these areas, they effectively contribute to the long-term conservation of biodiversity (see Definition Box). Examples include seasonal fisheries closures or protection of historic sites. The identification and recognition and use of OECMs is an emerging practice globally, with potentially significant benefits for the Arctic region, according to a recent report by the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) and PAME on OECMs in the Arctic Marine Environment.

Another emerging conservation measure in the marine Arctic is Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs; see Definition Box). The concept builds on longstanding Indigenous stewardship practices and gained formal policy recognition in the early 2000s through international conservation discussions, including under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

“It is crucial that we bring different knowledge systems together in order to have effective conservation. It is the homeland of the Arctic Indigenous Peoples, where scientific research is still relatively young compared to the knowledge of the people who have lived in the area for millennia.” Martin Sommerkorn, Head of Conservation, WWF Global Arctic Programme.

IPCAs are increasingly recognized globally as an important and complementary approach to area-based conservation measures alongside MPAs and OECMs. These areas support biodiversity and healthy ecosystems while maintaining cultural, spiritual, and nutritional relationships with nature.

Conservation planning across jurisdictions

The extent of protected and conserved areas in the Arctic marine environment has increased almost fivefold since 1980. Despite this progress, these areas still cover only about 5 percent of the region and falls short of the “30x30 target” under the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), that calls for the conservation of 30 percent of the Earth's land, waters, and seas by 2030.

How protected areas are established depends on whether they lie within a state's national jurisdiction. Within national waters, Arctic States can designate MPAs, OECMs, or IPCAs through domestic processes. These approaches differ from country to country.

In areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), such as parts of the Central Arctic Ocean, conservation depends on international cooperation. The Arctic Council’s Working Groups, including CAFF and PAME, contribute with scientific and technical knowledge that can inform conservation planning across jurisdictions.

"Through its Working Groups and Permanent Participants, the Arctic Council has developed and continues to provide essential guidelines and expertise to support the protection and sustainable use of the Arctic marine environment," said Lis Jørgensen.

Designing connected networks for effective outcomes

Conservation is most effective when MPAs, OECMs, and IPCAs function together as connected networks. “The Arctic Ocean is an enclosed and connected ocean, and we need to look at the region as a whole when we design conservation measures,” said Martin Sommerkorn.

“Conservation in the Arctic presents unique challenges. The effects of global climate change are dramatic, especially for sea ice-dependent species. Ice has a phase shift at zero degrees. So, it either exists or it doesn't."

Networks of marine protected and conserved areas not only help the protection of biodiversity but also strengthen their ability to adapt and develop to changes. Many marine mammals, fish, and seabirds migrate across vast parts of the Arctic Ocean to access habitats for feeding, breeding, and nursery grounds. Within a single season, they may cross several jurisdictional boundaries, underscoring the importance of coordinated and ecosystem-based approaches.

PAME’s Framework for a Pan-Arctic Marine Conservation Network outlines opportunities to connect national and regional efforts, including areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). By linking important habitats, such cooperative approaches can help support coordinated conservation outcomes while respecting national jurisdictions and existing governance arrangements, strengthening the resilience of Arctic ecosystems.

“Cooperation on marine protected and conserved area networks, including in ABNJ, could be a primary avenue for sustaining cooperation in the region, including the Arctic Council,” said Martin Sommerkorn.

In 2025, CAFF and PAME began developing a planning tool for area-based conservation of Arctic species and ecosystems. Strengthening their already existing Framework and Toolbox, this endeavor will initially develop a tool for identifying and prioritizing Arctic areas of high conservation priority for sea ice-dependent species, taking into account climate change and human use. These efforts will ultimately support the planning and development of a climate-resilient network of area based conservation measures.

Definition box:

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) can be defined 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, 2008). The CBD offers another definition; “a geographically defined area, which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives” (CBD Article 2, 1992).

Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs): 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, socio-economic, and other locally relevant values (CBD, 2018).

Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs): although there is no legal definition, the 2018 Indigenous Circle of Experts in Canada referred to IPCAs as “lands and waters where Indigenous governments have the primary role in protecting and conserving ecosystems through Indigenous laws, governance and knowledge systems.” (Indigenous Circle of Experts, 2018).