In the Norwegian Arctic, petroleum exploration is prohibited north of the ice edge (the zone between solid sea ice and open ocean); the mapping and definition of the ice edge becomes the boundary for petroleum exploration. However, no evidence-based scientifically 'correct' position of the ice edge exists. Defining the ice edge-and its geographic positioning-is the result of co-production processes involving multiple actors and practices. We explore how the use of a new dataset for determining the geographical position of the ice edge became the centre of a proxy debate over how far north petroleum exploration should be allowed. The analysis reveals how maps serve as visual discourses in debate, and a strong correlation between different definitions of the ice edge and political commitment to petroleum activities. We challenge and discuss the performativity of maps and how mismatches between expectations to knowledge-based management, including maps, may have democratic implications.

In this chapter we explore how the geographical position of the marginal ice zone in the Barents Sea became the center of a hot political debate. In 2015, new data sets on the retreat of sea ice were introduced by the Norwegian government, indicating how petroleum drilling could take place without conflicting with the vulnerable ice ecosystem. In the public debate that followed, four different definitions of the ice edge zone were introduced, each providing different geographical positions of the ice edge. These multiple definitions directly corresponded to various political views on the exploration of petroleum in the Barents Sea. The analysis shows how ethical principles connected to scientific rigor and independence may be put on trial when conflicts of interests escalate in policy debates. This chapter demonstrates the mismatch between ethical ideals and practice in knowledge-based management, and discusses what their democratic implications might be.