Following Ecological Indicators:
Threshold-Based Governance in the Arctic Ocean
© Katharina Heinrich
The ocean is used by individuals and states for a number of maritime activities, such as fishing, shipping, tourism, and research. It is also home to a wide range of marine biodiversity. A mosaic of international, national and regional instruments is in place to coordinate, organize and regulate these activities and their impact on marine biodiversity. The most relevant instrument is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It establishes different maritime zones. Broadly speaking, the marine space is divided into two areas: areas that fall within the jurisdiction of coastal States and areas that lie beyond national jurisdiction. The latter include the high seas (i.e., the water column) and the underlying seabed and subsoil thereof, also called the Area. The Central Arctic Ocean, for example, is one of the high seas’ areas in the Arctic.
While the high seas are open to all States to conduct commercial activities (e.g., fish, for navigation or research), States simultaneously have to ensure the protection of marine biodiversity. This is laid out in the provisions of the UNCLOS (articles 87 and 192). Achieving a balance between these principles can be challenging as conservation efforts are often subordinated to State’s economic and political interests. This means that the establishment of conservation measures on the high seas, like marine protected areas, is often subject to a lengthy negotiation process aiming to find a compromise on the geographical scope and duration of protection zones in order to accommodate the fishing interests of States.
In addition to a fragmented legal landscape, marine activities are not coordinated by an overarching, cross-sectoral body. Instead, they are managed by different bodies, which are responsible for the management of specific activities, like the
regulation of shipping by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the regulation of fishing activities through regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs). This creates challenges for a coordinated, coherent approach to ocean governance and management in the high seas, which is crucial to effectively halt ongoing biodiversity loss and continued pressures on marine ecosystems emerging from climate change, pollution, and human activities. The Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement), which entered into force in January 2026, addresses some of these gaps and aims to bring clarity and coordination into the fragmented regulatory and governance landscape. Additionally, the Agreement has a clear ecosystem focus through the integration of the ecosystem approach as one of the foundational principles. As such, it aims to build ecosystem resilience through the use of best available science and relevant traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The BBNJ Agreement provides a real opportunity to prioritize marine ecosystem needs and move beyond traditional ocean governance and management, which places human and state interests, such as economic development, at its center.
Picture: The Central Arctic Ocean, Source: Malte Humpert, The Arctic Institute, in Smieszek-Rice, M. (2024). Science and governance in the Arctic: Terms of engagement. In North Pacific Perspectives On The Arctic (pp. 96-130). Edward Elgar Publishing.
My paper responds to these aspects and introduces thresholds, which are a tool commonly used in environmental governance, indicating unwanted, potentially irreversible change (e.g., a habitat structure or species composition) and, by that, helps to understand ecosystem dynamics. I argue that the incorporation of a set of thresholds, which trigger (temporary) conservation measures, could support a more adequate approach to ocean governance and management, which prioritizes marine ecosystem needs and aligns with the objectives of the BBNJ Agreement.
What are thresholds?
There are two types of thresholds, which are used for precautionary management approaches. Ecological thresholds describe a point, limit or level where a change of an environmental condition (e.g., warming ocean temperatures) can lead to unwanted change (e.g., decrease of sea ice extent or coral bleaching events). Management thresholds define acceptable levels of human disturbance on the ecosystem (e.g., a specific type of fishery in a specific area) and are set with the intention to prevent the crossing of the ecological threshold.
While they are a common tool, there is no overarching, cross-sectoral understanding of thresholds for marine management. Instead, different legal norms include thresholds with varying terminologies and purposes. For example, the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) refers to the term reference points (specifically conservation and management reference points, as well as provisional reference points), which trigger pre-agreed conservation and management action. Also, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) currently discusses the development of thresholds to determine the maximum acceptable level of harm of deep-sea mining to the marine environment. The terms environmental threshold values and early warning thresholds are used in these discussions. Thresholds are implemented in practice and support a more dynamic management system which reflects the realities of ecosystem characteristics and changes, such as migration patterns and or fluctuation of fish stock sizes. However, these are largely restricted to the management of areas within national jurisdiction and are targeted to one specific sector, such as fishing. An example is the designation of soft and hard limits, which trigger different management responses, such as a closure of the fishing zone if the hard limit is breached. These limits are set well above thresholds, which would mean the collapse of a fish stock.
The paper illustrates that the development of a set of thresholds, ideally considering all relevant sectors, is based on scientific information regarding ecosystem functions, interactions and dynamics. As such, safe and ecological limits for human activities to take place are determined, and the approach in itself can support a holistic, ecosystem-centered management. This also aligns with the general obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment under the law of the sea, as well as with the objectives and principles of the BBNJ Agreement, including the ecosystem-based approach.
How can thresholds shape future Arctic Ocean Governance?
While economic activities in the Central Arctic Ocean might not occur for some time and are only beginning to emerge, the paper highlights the unique opportunity to develop a threshold-based, precautionary approach to ocean governance within the region. This would include the designation of a set of thresholds, based on selected, relevant indicators, placed along the trajectory of projected change. As such, they reflect early warning points, soft and hard limits that are placed well before the actual ecological threshold, which indicates a point of no return. Potential different thresholds (e.g. migration patterns, stock density (biomass), occurrence collisions between ships and marine mammal collision, by-catch levels) are then linked to pre-agreed measures for different marine activities (e.g., move-on rules for fishing vessels, re-routing measures for ship traffic, strictly protected areas), which might be implemented, modified or repealed based on monitoring outcomes and the state of the ecosystem and its biodiversity.
Governance developments in the Central Arctic Ocean provide a favorable starting point for this approach. The Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement (CAOFA) aims to prevent unregulated fishing activities within the high seas portion. To gain a better understanding of the marine ecosystem, it establishes a joint research and monitoring program integrating Western science and Indigenous knowledge. While primarily being focused on fisheries, the Agreement applies an ecosystem approach and aims to generate knowledge that reflects ecosystem integrity. Alongside other Arctic-specific or -related efforts, it could inform the development of a threshold-based management approach, as part of a precautionary, ecosystem-driven, and ideally cross-sectoral governance system.
Katharina Heinrich is a researcher with a background in Polar Law and Coastal and Marine Management. Her work focuses primarily on ocean governance and marine biodiversity conservation in the Polar regions and Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ). She is a doctoral researcher in Interdisciplinary Environmental Sciences at the University of Helsinki and an Arctic Initiative Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Relations.