Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Marine Protected Areas as a Tool to Ensure Environmental Protection of the Marine Arctic: Legal Aspects

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Arctic Marine Governance

  • 2293 Accesses

Abstract

The sensitive Arctic marine environment, with its fragile ecosystems and habitats, may be threatened by increasing human activities and melting of sea ice due to climate change. Marine protected areas (MPAs) are an environmental tool that, by ensuring a higher level of protection within a defined geographical area, can benefit conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity. To ensure conservation of marine biological diversity, a number of states have committed themselves to establishing a coherent network of MPAs within 2012, an objective endorsed also by the Arctic states. In this chapter, political developments with regard to the establishment of MPAs within and outside of national jurisdiction and legal obligations applicable to the marine Arctic are examined. Despite having both legal obligations and political initiative, there is currently no network of MPAs in the marine Arctic. To ensure implementation of global obligations in the Arctic region, there is a need for further operationalization and clarification of scientific criteria for the selection and designation of sites that may contribute to a future network of MPAs. To fulfill the objective of an ecologically coherent network of MPAs in the marine Arctic, stronger efforts must also be made by the Arctic states through the Arctic Council.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    As discussed in Chap. 1, there are many different definitions for areas constitute the marine Arctic. Regarding conservation of biological diversity, there are good reasons for adopting a wide definition of the ‘marine Arctic’. In this chapter, the same definition as established in Chap. 1 and throughout this book, which includes the Arctic Ocean and its adjoining seas, is applied.

  2. 2.

    The ‘Banana hole’ in the Norwegian Sea, the ‘Loop Hole’ in the Barents Sea, the ‘Donut Hole’ in the Bering Sea, and the ‘Central Arctic Ocean’.

  3. 3.

    See CBD COP Decision VII/5, para. 8, Seventh Ordinary Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 9–20 Feb 2004, Kuala Lumpur. CBD COP Decision IX/33, para. 8, Ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 19–30 May 2008, Bonn.

  4. 4.

    See Jakobsen (2012).

  5. 5.

    For a discussion of the competence to establish MPAs in the EEZ, see Frank (2007), Lagoni (2003), and Jakobsen (2010).

  6. 6.

    Sedentary species are defined in the provision as “…organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with these a-bed or the subsoil”.

  7. 7.

    Note that while MPAs on the high seas are established under the OSPAR Convention, none of these are within the maritime areas of the Arctic.

  8. 8.

    For a discussion of this, see Molenaar and Oude Elferink (2009).

  9. 9.

    See, for instance, the EU’s Marine Strategic Framework Directive (2008).

  10. 10.

    These recommendations were endorsed in UNGA (2011) This obligation is reasonable, para. 167.

  11. 11.

    Biological diversity is defined in the CBD as “the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part: this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems” (CBD 1992, art. 2).

  12. 12.

    See Namibia Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1971, 16: 31; Case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), ICJ Reports 1997, para. 140; and the arbitration case between Belgium and the Netherlands: The Arbitration Regarding the Iron Rhine, The Permanent Court of Arbitration, 2005, para. 59.

  13. 13.

    The relationship between the CBD and the LOS Convention is addressed in CBD Article 22.

  14. 14.

    Southern bluefin cases (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), 38 ITLOS Report 1724 (1999), para. 170.

  15. 15.

    For an overview of the member states, see <www.cbd.int/convention/parties/list>.

  16. 16.

    As for areas outside national jurisdiction, it follows from Article 4(b) that the CBD applies in the case of “…processes and activities, regardless of where their effects occur, carried out under its jurisdiction or control, within the area of its national jurisdiction or beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”.

  17. 17.

    Regarding Article 22, see Wolfrum and Matz (2000) and Jakobsen (2010).

  18. 18.

    The interpretation and application of the clause “as far as possible and as appropriate” is discussed in Jakobsen (2010).

  19. 19.

    Regarding the principle of differentiated responsibility, see Birnie et al. (2009).

  20. 20.

    This interpretation is also adopted by the expert committee who proposed the Norwegian Nature Management Act of 2009, see NOU (2004):28, p. 160.

  21. 21.

    The COP decisions are available at <http://www.cbd.int/>.

  22. 22.

    CBD COP Decision IX/20. Ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, 19–30 May 2008, Bonn.

  23. 23.

    CBD COP Decision VII/5, supra note 3, para. 18.

  24. 24.

    CBD COP Decision VII/5, ibid, para. 26.

  25. 25.

    CBD COP Decision VII/24, para. 35–47, Seventh Ordinary Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, 9–20 Feb 2004, Kuala Lumpur.

  26. 26.

    CBD COP Decision IX/20, supra note 23.

  27. 27.

    An example of this is the agreement on search and rescue which is negotiated under the auspices of the Arctic Council (Arctic SAR Agreement 2011). See also Chap. 1.

  28. 28.

    The Commission has the competence to adopt both legally binding decisions and non-legally binding recommendations (OSPAR Convention 1992, art. 10(3) and 13).

  29. 29.

    In the Guidelines for the Management of Marine Protected Areas in the OSPAR Maritime Area, 2003/18, both fisheries and shipping are mentioned as examples of activities that may require regulation.

  30. 30.

    Information and relevant documents and publications about CPAN are available at <http://www.caff.is/protected-areas-cpan>. See also Koivurova (2009).

  31. 31.

    Possible explanations are provided in Lalonde (2010).

References

  • ACIA (2005) Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • AEPS (1991) Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, 30 I.L.M. 1624 14 Jan 1991

    Google Scholar 

  • Agenda 21 (1992) Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development. Conference on Environment and Development. U.N. GAOR, 46th Sess., Agenda Item 21, UN Doc A/Conf.151/26

    Google Scholar 

  • AOR (2011) Phase I Report (2009-2011) of the Arctic Ocean Review (AOR) project. <www.pame.is>. Accessed 1 Feb 2013

  • Arctic Council (2004) Arctic Marine Strategic Plan. 24 Nov 2004. <http://www.pame.is/images/stories/AMSP_files/AMSP-Nov-2004.pdf>. Accessed 5 Feb 2013

  • Arctic SAR Agreement (2011) Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic, 12 May 2011, 50 I.L.M. 1119 (2011). Entered into force on 19 Jan 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnie P, Boyle A, Redgwell C (2009) International law and the environment, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle A (2006) Further development of the 1982 convention on the law of the sea. In: Barnes R, Freestone D, Ong D (eds) The law of the sea: Progress and prospects. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Burhenne-Guilmin F, Casey-Lefkowitz S (1992) The Convention on Biological Diversity: A hard won global achievement. Yearb Int Environ Law 3(1):43–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CAFF (1996a) Circumpolar Protected Areas Network: Strategy and Action Plan. CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No. 6

    Google Scholar 

  • CAFF (1996b) Circumpolar Protected Area Network (CPAN): Principles and Guidelines. CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No. 4

    Google Scholar 

  • CAFF (1997) CPAN Progress Report 1997. CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No. 7

    Google Scholar 

  • CAFF (2004) CPAN Country Updates Report 2004. CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No. 11

    Google Scholar 

  • CAFF (2009) CAFF WORK PLAN 2009–2011 Ministerial Period. CAFF International Secretariat, Akureyri

    Google Scholar 

  • CAFF (2010) Arctic Biodiversity Trends 2010—Selected indicators of change. CAFF International Secretariat, Akureyri. <http://www.arcticbiodiversity.is/images/stories/report/pdf/Arctic_Biodiversity_Trends_Report_2010.pdf>

  • CAFF (2011) Conservation of Arctic flora and fauna (CAFF) Workplan. CAFF Administrative Series Report No. 1. CAFF International Secretariat, Akureyri

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity, 5 June 1992, 1760 U.N.T.S. 79. Entered into force 29 Dec 1991

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank V (2007) The European community and marine environmental protection in the international law of the sea: Implementing global obligations at the regional level. Utrecht University, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen T (2010) Conservation and sustainable use of Arctic marine biodiversity. Arctic Rev Law Politics 2(1):249–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilulissat Declaration (2008) Arctic Ocean Conference. 48 I.L.M. 382 (2009) Ilulissat, Greenland. 27 May 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • IISD (2012) Earth negotiations bulletin: Summary of the fifth meeting of the working group on marine biodiversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction, vol 25. P 83. 7–11 May 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN (2011) Guidelines for applying the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories to Marine Protected Areas (supplementary to the 2008 guidelines), Second Draft. June 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN/WCMC (1994) Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsen IU (2010) Marine protected areas in international law: A Norwegian perspective. PhD Thesis, University of Tromsø. <http://hdl.handle.net/10037/4409>. Accessed 11 Feb 2013

  • Jakobsen IU (2012) Marine verneområder i Arktis: Kyststatens forpliktelser og rettigheter. In: Henriksen T, Ravna Ø (eds) Juss i nord: Hav, fisk og urfolk. Gyldendal, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Koivurova T (2009) Governance of protected areas in the Arctic. Utrecht Law Rev 5(1):44–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Koivurova T, Molenaar EJ (2009) International governance and regulation of the marine arctic: Overview and Gap Analysis. Report prepared for the WWF International Arctic Programme, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagoni R (2003) Marine protected areas in the exclusive economic zone. In Kirchner A (ed) International marine environmental law: Institutions, implementation and innovations. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Lalonde S (2010) A Network of Protected Areas in the Arctic: Promises and Challenges. In: Nordquist M, Moore J, Heidar T (eds) Changes in the Arctic Environment and the Law of the Sea. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 131–142

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • LOS Convention (1982) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 Dec 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 396. Entered into force 16 Nov 1994

    Google Scholar 

  • Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008) Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 June 2009 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy, June 17 2009, 2008 O.J. (L 164)

    Google Scholar 

  • Molenaar EJ, Oude Elferink AG (2009) Marine protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction: The pioneering efforts under the OSPAR Convention. Utrecht Law Rev 5(1):5–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordquist MH, Rosenne S (1991) United Nations convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A commentary, vol IV. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • OSPAR Convention (1992) Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, 22 Sept 1992, 32 I.L.M. 1072 (1993). Entered into force 25 Mar 1998

    Google Scholar 

  • OSPAR Commission (2003a) Guidelines for the identification and selection of marine protected areas in the OSPAR maritime area, 2003/17

    Google Scholar 

  • OSPAR Commission (2003b) Guidelines for the management of marine protected areas in the OSPAR maritime area, 2003/18

    Google Scholar 

  • OSPAR Commission (2003c) Recommendation on a network of marine protected areas, 2003/3, amended by Recommendation 2010/2

    Google Scholar 

  • OSPAR Commission (2006) Guidance on developing an ecologically coherent network of OSPAR marine protected areas, 2006/3

    Google Scholar 

  • OSPAR Commission (2011) Status report on the OSPAR network of marine protected areas

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottawa Declaration (1996) Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council, 35 I.L.M. 1382 19 Sept 1996

    Google Scholar 

  • PAME (2011) PAME Work Plan 2011–2013. <http://www.pame.is/images/PAME_NEW/PAME%20Work%20Plan/PAME_Work_Plan_2011-2013.pdf>. Accessed 5 Feb 2013

  • Tanaka Y (2012) The international law of the sea. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • UNGA (2008) Oceans and the Law of the Sea, A/Res/63/111

    Google Scholar 

  • UNGA (2011) Oceans and the Law of the Sea, A/Res./66/231, 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • UNGA (2012) Oceans and the Law of the Sea, A/Res./67/78

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2012) The Future We Want: Outcome document adopted at the Rio + 20 Conference. <http://www.un.org/en/sustainablefuture>. Accessed 8 Feb 2013

  • Vienna Convention (1969) The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331. Entered into force 27 Jan 1980

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfrum R, Matz N (2000) The Interplay of the United Nations Convention the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Biological Diversity. In: Bogdandy AV, Rüdiger W (eds) Max Planck yearbook of United Nations law, Max Planck Institute, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • WSSD (2002) Plan of Implementation of the World summit on Sustainable Development. United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, 26 Aug to Sept 2002

    Google Scholar 

  • WWF (2012) The Circle. World Wildlife Fund. World Wildlife Magazine 3

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway

    Ingvild Ulrikke Jakobsen

Authors
  1. Ingvild Ulrikke Jakobsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ingvild Ulrikke Jakobsen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ecologic Institute EIUS, Washington D.C., Washington D.C., USA

    Elizabeth Tedsen

  2. Ecologic Institute, Berlin, Germany

    Sandra Cavalieri

  3. Ecologic Institute, Berlin, Germany

    R. Andreas Kraemer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jakobsen, I.U. (2014). Marine Protected Areas as a Tool to Ensure Environmental Protection of the Marine Arctic: Legal Aspects. In: Tedsen, E., Cavalieri, S., Kraemer, R. (eds) Arctic Marine Governance. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38595-7_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation