A call for bold, precautionary governance in the Arctic

To safeguard Arctic biodiversity against accelerating climate warming and industrial activity, bold, coordinated governance is urgently required. The Arctic needs a legally binding, ecosystem-based, precautionary governance approach that prioritizes biodiversity and Indigenous Peoples’ rights rather than reacting to development pressures as they arise.

This shift demands collaboration among Arctic states and global partners to replace fragmented, reactive structures with forward-looking strategies. Key actions include aligning national policies with global biodiversity goals, establishing protected areas and other area-based management measures, and ensuring industrial activities are compatible with a profoundly altered Arctic future.

Highlighting what’s missing—and why it matters

The newly published Routledge Handbook of Arctic Governance features a chapter by Jan Dusík, former Governance Lead of the WWF Global Arctic Programme, and Erik Molenaar, from the Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea, Utrecht University. The chapter explores the challenges and gaps in Arctic marine governance, with a focus on the Central Arctic Ocean (CAO).

The authors highlight the accelerating ecological degradation caused by climate change and increased industrial activity. They argue that current governance systems are too fragmented, underdeveloped, or slow to respond effectively, and propose solutions to better protect Arctic marine biodiversity.

Fragmented governance and critical gaps

The governance of the CAO is a mosaic of legal and voluntary instruments and bodies, each serving a different geographical and sectoral purpose. The Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement (CAOFA), which came into effect in June 2021, is a strong example of precautionary cooperation that addresses one aspect of Arctic marine governance, fisheries in the high seas area of the CAO.

The Oslo-Paris Commission for the Protection of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Commission) has the ability to establish marine protected areas, but only in a small part of the CAO.  There is no shared framework for conducting environmental impact assessments, and no binding rules to manage emerging pressures like seabed mining. Addressing these gaps is essential to build a more comprehensive and resilient governance system for the region.

The role of the High Seas Treaty

The recently adopted High Seas Treaty—formally known as the Agreement on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement)—offers a potential mechanism to improve governance in the Arctic Ocean. Once in force, it will support the creation of marine protected areas, set new standards for environmental impact assessments, and encourage cooperation in marine science and capacity-building. However, the treaty’s effectiveness will depend on rapid ratification and implementation—and on whether Arctic institutions and states actively engage with its mechanisms. While the BBNJ Agreement cannot override existing bodies, it provides an important legal and institutional framework to support conservation in Arctic waters beyond national jurisdiction: the high seas and the international seabed.

Act Now: Use existing authority to protect Arctic biodiversity

Dusík and Molenaar argue that Arctic states must act now using their existing powers. Arctic coastal states, for example, can regulate marine activities within their exclusive economic zones (EEZs), including fishing, shipping, and mining. Coordinated actions can implement ecosystem-based management and protect climate-resilient corridors and habitats.

A conservation-based approach that supports Arctic Indigenous Peoples and local communities

Dusík and Molenaar call for a new economic approach in the Arctic—one that puts nature and people first. Instead of relying on short-term resource extraction, they propose investing in sustainable development that protects biodiversity while supporting the livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. They encourage decision-makers to use existing tools to guide this shift. These include the Arctic Council’s work on marine protected areas and ArcNet, a blueprint developed by WWF for a network of priority areas for conservation across the Arctic Ocean. They also highlight global agreements like the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which sets targets for protecting nature worldwide.

Moving forward despite geopolitical constraints

Even with ongoing geopolitical tensions, the authors emphasize that delay is not an option. The pace of environmental change in the Arctic demands immediate action. Like-minded Arctic states must not wait for perfect conditions to align. They can—and must—act now to advance science-based protections, establish precautionary measures, and build resilience into Arctic marine governance. Every year of inaction increases the risk of irreversible loss. Precautionary, coordinated steps taken today will determine whether Arctic biodiversity and the communities that depend on it can endure the changes ahead.

Read the chapter, Current and Projected Pressures on Arctic Biodiversity and Possible Governance Responses by Jan Dusík and Erik J. Molenaar, available now in the newly published Routledge Handbook of Arctic Governance.