One jurisdiction away from a healthier ecosystem? The impacts of jurisdictional zones on the health of large marine ecosystems

Abstract

The Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) divides the world ocean into different maritime zones. This division has led to situations where similar marine resources may be subject to different legal frameworks and requirements, even if they are, in ecological and geographical terms, part of the same Large Marine Ecosystem (LME). At least according to the environmental management literature, the mismatch between jurisdictional (maritime) zones and ecosystem boundaries is inherently harmful to marine ecosystems. This paper tries to validate this narrative by applying the Ocean Health Index (OHI) in relation to LMEs according to their ‘jurisdictional situation.’ Each of the five jurisdictional situations identified has different standings vis-à-vis UNCLOS. Thus, associating this concept with the OHI framework serves as the foundation to analyse whether or not the (mis)match of jurisdictional zones and LME boundaries has any measurable effects on an ecosystem’s health. This paper settles on two conclusions: one idealistic and one realistic. Idealistically, empirical evidence suggests that the concept of jurisdictional zones is incoherent from an ecological perspective, since they represent a risk factor for ecosystem-based management. This is concluded because ecosystems in jurisdictional situations with fewer jurisdictional zone intersections tend to receive better ocean health scores on average compared to their counterparts in other situations. However, realistically speaking, the same evidence is simultaneously inconclusive in validating the literature’s narrative. This is concluded considering that no direct correlation between the factors ‘fewer jurisdictional borders’ and ‘healthier marine ecosystems’ was attested; most likely, due to a vast number of cofounding biophysical, social-economic, and institutional considerations.