Central Arctic Fishing Ban Is A Model For Sustainable Ocean Management

Support CleanTechnica’s work through a Substack subscription or on Stripe.

Here are some things we know about overfishing. It depletes once-plentiful ocean grounds, devastates fish populations and wildlife, breaks down the food web, and degrades habitats. Oceans need a constant replenishment of fish to perform critical ecosystem services, such as storing carbon that is needed for climate mitigation. There is a solution, though: communities can enact a fishing ban.

Today some policymakers are looking to adopt area-based management tools (ABMTs) to address overfishing. These can include designating marine protected areas, closing fisheries, and outlining gear restriction areas. The Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement is one such example of international cooperation in marine management.

Global Cooperation to Protect the Oceans

The Central Arctic Ocean (CAO) comprises 1.1 million square miles of international waters around the North Pole. It is an area that, for most of human history, was completely covered with a thick layer of multiyear sea ice. But the Arctic is warming at a rate and magnitude that exceeds the global average. Climate change is rapidly melting this sea ice, bringing a cascading series of changes to the Arctic and the globe that we have never before faced.  Predictions suggest that by 2050 — and likely sooner —  the Arctic Ocean could become ice-free during the summer.

What is the ecosystem below the shrinking Arctic Ocean ice cover like? Scientists admit they really don’t know. That’s because the CAO is a high sea area that previously only has been accessible by heavy icebreakers. But what will happen if the seas open up?

Unregulated fishing could have severe impacts. It would be likely that shipping, deep-sea mining, or other industrial activities would damage the CAO ecosystem. Of course, the effectiveness of ABMTs is contingent on clear and exclusive authority over resources. If jurisdictions or countries dispute maritime boundaries, for example, or interpret the ABMT differently, a fishing ban becomes vulnerable. One-sided enactment of ABMTs mightbe regarded as asserting territorial claims, thereby provoking resentment, opposition, and increased illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing.

In 2018, nine countries and the European Union didn’t want to wait to find out what the effects of melting sea ice would be. They agreed not to fish in the CAO area for at least 16 years. It was a remarkable, unique, and collaborative approach to marine governance, explain multiple authors in Nature. It’s also nearly unheard of that the parties to the agreement continue to work together despite geopolitical turmoil. The necessary research and monitoring includes scientists and Indigenous local knowledge.

The Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement

The Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement is an Arctic coastal commercial fishing ban put in place until better scientific knowledge about the effect of commercial fishing and other industrial maritime activities become available. This creates an environment that allows more fish species to migrate to sub-Arctic waters and would increase the financial prospect of fishing in the CAO.

Overfishing is one of several areas of concern with the Arctic: pollution, climate change, and acidification also threaten marine productivity, biodiversity, and human livelihoods. Together, they critically undermine the resilience of fish, seabirds, marine mammals and other wildlife to the impacts of climate change.

Recent melting has the potential to open up new access to industries for the first time like commercial fishing, industrial shipping, and deep sea mining. As more data is made available about the importance of the Central Arctic Ocean and how it is changing due to global warming, it’s imperative to protect the area and ensure industrial activities do not inflict irreversible harm.

In the unexploited waters of the CAO, postponing industrial activity serves two purposes.

1. It avoids additional, possibly compounding impacts on an ecosystem already responding to rapid climate change, allowing natural processes time and space to adjust and adapt.
2. It makes sure that human activity does not cause harm that would then have to be remediated, but instead allows for the development of sufficient understanding to avoid or reduce the risk of harm before it happens.

Questions are circulating, though, about whether the Agreement can hold as new governmental leaders take office and interpret fishing bans from various perspectives. Indeed, while many countries agreed to conservation statements and commitments during the third United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC3), held in Nice, France in June 2025, these are the countries that have expressed keen curiosity about new opportunities to make the most of marine resources. Also, there remains the need to identify future regulations when industrial maritime activities open up: the exact species, numbers, and timing of commercial, fishing, for instance, remain unclear.

The Nature article authors argue that the CAO Agreement points to a different way to approach marine governance, but “more is needed in the region itself, as well as to extend this way of thinking around the world.” Over 1000 scientists agree from all corners of the planet. They’ve called for a robust and comprehensive negotiation that would protect the CAO from all forms of industrial activity until such a time as there is a better understanding of their effects on the region’s ecosystems.

The Arctic fishing ban is quite different from many other maritime actions in that it incorporates the involvement of Arctic Indigenous Peoples and their local knowledge. Partially, this is because the Agreement is grounded in an ecosystem approach, promoting social sustainability governance by ensuring it recognizes the needs of local residents who rely on CAO waters.

Final Thoughts about a Fishing Ban Implementation

An EU report released last year revealed that overfishing is again on the rise, with 43% of Atlantic and 83% of Mediterranean fish populations assessed are overfished. Vera Coelho, Oceana’s senior director for advocacy in Europe, insists that the EU has been “painfully slow” in implementing its legal commitment to approve only fish populations harvested sustainably.

The painfully slow implementation of EU legal requirements and the continued reluctance by Member States to follow scientific advice is bearing unwelcome, but not unexpected, fruit. In light of the ongoing biodiversity and climate crises, we cannot afford any step back in achieving sustainable fisheries. It is high time for the European Commission, Member States and the fishing industry to fully implement EU fisheries law to save our seas and secure a prosperous future for our fishing communities.

If the EU is to deliver on the objectives of the European Green Deal and build back better after the Covid-19 crisis, Oceana states that the EU must do everything in its power to prevent more overfishing and destructive fishing practices, which have been the main cause of marine biodiversity loss for the last 40 years. A fishing ban that is the by-product of seemingly disparate governments can and should be implemented to protect oceans.