Management of Fisheries in the High Seas of the Central Arctic Ocean
Contents
Summary
The Arctic Ocean is situated to the north of the landmass of the five coastal states – Russia, United States, Greenland, Norway and Canada. It constitutes two major regions - The peripheral and sub-Arctic Ocean area and the Central Arctic Ocean. The peripheral and sub-arctic ocean region falls under the jurisdiction of the nation states that border this region and the large part of the Central Arctic Ocean (CAO) is not under any territorial jurisdiction and is categorized as the High Seas. Some part of the CAO falls under the maritime zone of the bordering nation states. The boundary between the two Arctic regions is defined by the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) . Until recently, the CAO was covered in ice all throughout the area. Over the last two decades, the ice sheet in the CAO has been melting due to impacts of climate change and as it stands about 40 percent of the CAO is open waters during the summer season. Due to lack of an institutional mechanism that regulates fishing or for that matter any resources in the CAO, there is a fear that resources will be exploited.
The Arctic coastal states have taken the lead to initiate discussions on management of fisheries in the CAO. The initial negotiations started off with the five Arctic coastal states as major stakeholders and outside the exiting mechanisms such as the United Nations or the Arctic Council. In 2015, the five states signed the Oslo Declaration that placed a moratorium on commercial fishing in the CAO until there is a better scientific understanding of the Arctic ecosystem. Later that year, the Arctic five states initiated a border negotiation process to include more stakeholders – Japan, South Korea, China, Iceland and the European Union. As it stands currently, the negotiations are still taking place and the stakeholders are looking to draft a legally binding agreement on governance of fisheries in the CAO. The case study will explore and analyze the current negotiations that are taking place regarding commercial fishing in high seas of the Central Arctic Ocean.
Natural, Historic, Economic, Regional, and Political Framework
Issues and Stakeholders
Commercial fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAO)
NSPD: Ecosystems, Governance, Assets
Stakeholder Types: Sovereign state/national/federal government, Supranational union, Environmental interest, Industry/Corporate Interest
Commercial fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAO)
NSPD: Ecosystems, Governance, Assets
Stakeholder Types: Sovereign state/national/federal government, Supranational union, Environmental interest, Industry/Corporate Interest
Commercial fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAO)
NSPD: Ecosystems, Governance, Assets
Stakeholder Types: Sovereign state/national/federal government, Supranational union, Environmental interest, Industry/Corporate Interest
Commercial fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAO)
NSPD: Ecosystems, Governance, Assets
Stakeholder Types: Sovereign state/national/federal government, Supranational union, Environmental interest, Industry/Corporate Interest
Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight
Individuals may add their own Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight (ASI) to a case. ASI sub-articles are protected, so that each contributor retains authorship and control of their own content. Edit the case to add your own ASI.
Learn moreNo ASI articles have been added yet for this case
Key Questions
Transboundary Water Issues: What kinds of water treaties or agreements between countries can provide sufficient structure and stability to ensure enforceability but also be flexible and adaptable given future uncertainties?
The case study is about creation of a legally binding treaty with joint fact finding built into it. This component can help in long term suitability for the agreement
Transboundary Water Issues: What considerations can be given to incorporating collaborative adaptive management (CAM)? What efforts have the parties made to review and adjust a solution or decision over time in light of changing conditions?
a. The stakeholders in the case study recognize the changing climatic conditions in the Arctic ecosystem. They are building in CAM in the agreement by conducting scenario analysis and identifying conditions needed that might trigger a decision such as in the case of conditions that can trigger creation of an RFMA/O
b. The stakeholders in the case recognize the lack of understanding of the importance of scientific information of the Arctic ecosystem and are using science experts to inform the diplomatic process
Power and Politics: How can government be dis/incentivized to offer an inclusive planning process?
The case study is an example of taking a precautionary approach in fish stock management as it learns from previous experiences (Bearing sea case in 1970s that resulted in over exploitation of fish stocks)
Transboundary Water Issues: What kinds of water treaties or agreements between countries can provide sufficient structure and stability to ensure enforceability but also be flexible and adaptable given future uncertainties?
The case study is about creation of a legally binding treaty with joint fact finding built into it. This component can help in long term suitability for the agreement
Transboundary Water Issues: What considerations can be given to incorporating collaborative adaptive management (CAM)? What efforts have the parties made to review and adjust a solution or decision over time in light of changing conditions?
a. The stakeholders in the case study recognize the changing climatic conditions in the Arctic ecosystem. They are building in CAM in the agreement by conducting scenario analysis and identifying conditions needed that might trigger a decision such as in the case of conditions that can trigger creation of an RFMA/O
b. The stakeholders in the case recognize the lack of understanding of the importance of scientific information of the Arctic ecosystem and are using science experts to inform the diplomatic process
Power and Politics: How can government be dis/incentivized to offer an inclusive planning process?
The case study is an example of taking a precautionary approach in fish stock management as it learns from previous experiences (Bearing sea case in 1970s that resulted in over exploitation of fish stocks)
Transboundary Water Issues: What kinds of water treaties or agreements between countries can provide sufficient structure and stability to ensure enforceability but also be flexible and adaptable given future uncertainties?
The case study is about creation of a legally binding treaty with joint fact finding built into it. This component can help in long term suitability for the agreement
Transboundary Water Issues: What considerations can be given to incorporating collaborative adaptive management (CAM)? What efforts have the parties made to review and adjust a solution or decision over time in light of changing conditions?
a. The stakeholders in the case study recognize the changing climatic conditions in the Arctic ecosystem. They are building in CAM in the agreement by conducting scenario analysis and identifying conditions needed that might trigger a decision such as in the case of conditions that can trigger creation of an RFMA/O
b. The stakeholders in the case recognize the lack of understanding of the importance of scientific information of the Arctic ecosystem and are using science experts to inform the diplomatic process
Power and Politics: How can government be dis/incentivized to offer an inclusive planning process?
The case study is an example of taking a precautionary approach in fish stock management as it learns from previous experiences (Bearing sea case in 1970s that resulted in over exploitation of fish stocks)
