The Arctic Council

The Arctic Council was established in 1996 as an intergovernmental forum through which member parties can address issues relating to the Arctic region and its inhabitants.  In Alternatives for an Arctic Treaty: Evaluation and a New Proposal, Timo Koivurova argues that the cooperation mechanisms within the framework of the Arctic Council, however, were ultimately not given legal form, leading him to argue that operations at the Arctic Council have been insufficient in the mandate of environmental protection.  Writers such as Stephen Leahy of Inter Press Services News suggest that there is an intense rush to secure claims to Arctic resources, which he believes the Arctic Council is incapable, or unwilling, of handling in a sustainable fashion.  This article investigates the state of the Arctic environment and attempts to judge whether the Arctic Council is able to adequately ensure that upcoming development of the region is done in a sustainable manner.

Global Warming and the Arctic Region

To begin with, the greatest threat to Arctic environmental security is climate change.  As temperatures continue to rise due to global warming, argues Louise Angelique de La Fayette in Oceans Governance in the Arctic, the Arctic region is undergoing severe repercussions on its fragile ecosystems.  Studies, she claims, have shown that temperatures in the Arctic are increasing at double the rate of the rest of world, causing unprecedented melting of glaciers and sea ice.  The extensive decrease in sea ice left the Northwest Passage free of ice at the end of summer in 2007, leaving it open to navigation for the first time in history.  The melting process is continuously strengthened by exposing ever greater areas of darker sea waters, which brings an increase of heat absorption from the sun.  The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, writes La Fayette, has predicted that sea ice could disappear by 2030, which will open the possibility for year long shipping and offshore mineral exploitation.

In the publication Land-Based Pollution in the Arctic Ocean: Canadian Actions in a Regional and Global Context, Environment Canada reported that by being affected by, and contributing heavily to, the natural atmospheric processes which surround the planet, the Arctic plays a substantial role in the planet’s climate environment.  This fact, they suggest, is a big reason why the most contentious environmental issue in the Arctic today is the amount of atmospheric gases, particularly Carbon Dioxide (CO2).

To gain greater understanding of the impacts of global warming, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) was initiated, which stated that the continuous increase in CO2 and other gases was projected to have serious consequences for the Arctic environment.  Shifts in atmospheric circulation patterns and an accelerated rate of sea level rise will contribute to “significant impacts on coastal communities, animal and plant species, water resources, and human health and well being.”

David J. Tenenbaum points out, in Arctic Climate: The Heat Is On, that the main focus of the ACIA was not temperature, but the ecological, cultural, and economic impacts of global warming on the Arctic region.  Tenenbaum indicates that a few of the changes could be considered positives, such as improved marine transportation as ice retreats, and increased vegetation growth which could lead to greater food production.  But these potential positive aspects are far-overshadowed by negative ecological consequences, Tenenbaum argues, stating that “as ice continues to retreat from the Arctic Ocean, animals that live on or hunt under the ice… could grow scarcer or even go extinct.”

Due to these changes in Arctic ecosystems, La Fayette says that both flora and fauna (plant and wildlife) have had to adapt to new circumstances or face extinction.  Polar bears, she contends, are under serious threat because of their habitual attachment to sea ice, and are likely to become extinct.  Seals, the polar bears main food source, are also endangered.  Seals use sea ice as a breeding habitat, and are having greater difficulty reproducing.  Caribou are facing challenges as well due to changing temperatures.  Warming trends brought rain which turns to solid ice on the ground, preventing caribou from reaching lichen, their major food source.

Global Warming and Arctic Inhabitants

The grave consequences of climate change on the Arctic’s physical environment and biodiversity is also affecting the livelihood of Arctic peoples who have been hunting, fishing, gathering and herding for thousands of years.  They are increasingly prevented from using the disappearing sea ice for hunting, fishing, and traveling, and animals which northern people hunt are decreasing in numbers or migrating to different locations.  The Arctic lands are home to approximately four million people, generally living in small communities along the northern coasts of the Arctic nations.  The number of people living in the Arctic is growing, and nearly one-third are people from indigenous groups, whose ability to live in their traditional fashion is being challenged by climate change.

The Inuit, which includes some 155,000 people living in eastern Siberia, North America and Greenland, face particular challenges, said Sheila Watt-Cloutier, chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, one of six organizations that contributed to the ACIA: “Hunting is the basis of Inuit culture,” she stressed, “and an economic necessity because imported food prices reflect high transportation costs.”  For most of the Arctic people, hunting is not simply a means of sustenance, but a way of life.  Arctic peoples must already contend with high levels of toxic pollutants that have drifted north through the atmosphere and contaminated animals and breast milk.  Watt-Cloutier emphasized that while the possibility of polar bears becoming extinct is a popular headline in southern regions, the danger of being “poisoned from afar” through greenhouse gas production in the south is “not just about endangered species of animals. We ourselves are an endangered species.”

The Arctic Region: Governance of Growing Ocean Space

Along with climate change, a major issue regarding the Arctic environment is the state of the Arctic Ocean.  The Arctic is essentially a mass of ice, and La Fayette argues that symbolic gestures like that by Russia on August 2, 2007, in which divers from a submarine planted a flag on the Arctic seabed, have little consequences in claiming either land territory or the North Pole.  The North Pole, La Fayette points out, does not even exist, in a real physical sense: “It is a notional point in the midst of the ice-bound Arctic Ocean, which is surrounded by the land territories of Canada, Denmark (for Greenland), Norway, Russia, and the United States.”

This point is important in order to understand that, with the growing retreat of Arctic sea ice, management of the Arctic region is generally an issue of oceans governance.  Rights over exploitation of either mineral or fisheries resources in the Arctic, argues La Fayette, will not be decided by planting flags or hard power tactics.  The division of ocean space, protection of the marine environment, and sovereignty over ocean resources and conduct in their extraction will be governed under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC).

All ocean-related issues, which essentially means all Arctic issues, will be regulated through the provisions of the LOSC.  The small amount of land territory in the Arctic and its resources are subject to national jurisdiction, whereas maritime zones extend seaward to the limits previously established by the LOSC.  What coastal states are currently fighting over is the establishment of their outer continental shelves, which can extend over 200 nautical miles from their coasts on the Arctic seabed.  And until Arctic nations have delimited the bilateral (where two nations boundaries come against each other) and outer continental shelf boundaries, says La Fayette, nationals will not be able to “engage in resource extraction in areas where sovereign rights and jurisdiction are disputed or uncertain.”

The Race for Arctic Resource Exploitation

In terms of ocean resource exploitation, however, Rosemary Rayfuse, in Protecting Marine Biodiversity in Polar Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, argues that with the extent of claims by the five coastal states which border the Arctic Ocean, only a small portion of the Arctic ocean will be beyond the reach of national jurisdiction.  Therefore, one can assume that the exploitation of ocean resources in the Arctic Ocean is likely to be extensive with the growing areas of open ocean, particularly extraction of living marine resources.

La Fayette is in agreement with Rayfuse, stating that the greatest threat to the marine environment and biodiversity is fishing.  On top of the harm caused by an increased number of fishing vessels, uncontrolled fishing could bring other kinds of damage.  Fish and whaling extraction activities, as well as bioprospecting, bring with them the threat of over-exploitation of both target and non-target species, and a further threat from the potential destruction of habitat from poor fishing practices like bottom trawling.  Although there is currently very limited extraction activities in the Arctic region, with the ever-increasing area of open ocean spare, Arctic nations are showing substantial interest in future extraction of Arctic living marine resources.

In addition to living marine resource extraction, it is believed that extensive reserves of oil and gas lie beneath the frozen ocean.  With oil and gas extraction already taking place on land and close to shore in Alaska, Canada, and Russia, a report was conducted by the US Geological Survey which estimated that 25% of the world’s oil and gas reserves lay beneath the Arctic.  Now that widespread melting of Arctic ice is opening previously blocked areas, accessibility to minerals and transportation of oil by sea will be facilitated with increasing ease.  With a decrease in difficulties relating to extraction activities comes further development of oil rigs, transportation of supplies and services by ship, and a growing number of oil tankers moving throughout the region.

However, visions of a “gold rush” in the Arctic may not come about as soon as projected.  Environmental concerns that exploitation of oil and gas could cause serious damage through accidents and general disturbance of native flora and fauna could potentially delay exploitation while awaiting ongoing environmental impact assessments.  Furthermore, scientists and shipping experts believe that due to the breaking up of the previously solid ice sheets, there will be an increase in the already large variability of ice conditions throughout the year, as well as multi-year ice, which can drift into shipping lanes.  With these projections, La Fayette suggests that “navigation in the Arctic is likely to be more, rather than less, dangerous.”

Contamination of the Arctic Region: A Gift from the Outside World

Along with climate change and resource extraction activities is the growing number of contaminants which find their way to the Arctic.  The tragedy of Arctic contamination is that contamination is predominantly due to sources far outside the region.  Large amounts of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) which appear in the Arctic environment originate from industrial and agricultural practices to the south.  This brings a particular danger to indigenous Arctic populations through consumption of contaminated traditional foods.  Indigenous peoples are further threatened by the presence of heavy metals, such as high concentrations of mercury, lead, and cadmium, which pose the greatest threat to human health.

Contaminants are transported to the Arctic by three routes: oceanic, freshwater, and atmospheric pathways.  In terms of oceanic pathways, pollutant transport through the ocean is relatively slow. However, oceans have a much larger capacity to transport contaminants than other routes, which makes marine pathways a major concern.  Alterations in the strength of the halocline, a transition layer in the Arctic Ocean of increased salinity, can significantly change the transportation of pollutants.  Weakening of the halocline can result in contaminants penetrating the Arctic deep water, the lowest of three main layers which make up the Arctic Ocean. Environment Canada projects that the halocline in the Canadian Basin will experience a decrease in strength, such as what occurred in the Eurasian Basin during the 1990’s.  If projections are accurate, the length of time that pollutants remain in the Canadian Basin will be extended from as low as two to as high as ten years, causing insurmountable damage to the region.

Freshwater pathways leading to the Arctic are significant due to the extensive catchment area of the Arctic Ocean.  In some Arctic regions of Canada, Russia, Finland, and Alaska, some rivers have levels of contamination that would far exceed safety guidelines of southern areas.  Particularly damaging are the rivers and estuaries in northern Russia which suffer from high levels of oil contamination, as well as large amounts of pesticides and other organic chemicals.

In contrast to oceanic pathways, atmospheric pathways contain relatively low concentrations of contaminants.  But due to the speed with which the atmosphere acts as a transportation mechanism, pollutants are able to reach the Arctic with weeks or even days.  The majority of Arctic atmospheric contamination is due to the close proximity of European industrial centers located at a higher latitude than anywhere else.  The short distance allows a significant amount of European emissions to flow directly into the polar cap, contributing to both climate change and regional contamination of land and ocean living resources.

Arctic Conservation Efforts: Salivating over GDP Potential

Environment Canada takes the position that in order to effectively address the issue of Arctic contamination there must be a concerted effort between national, pan-Arctic, and international actions.  Protection of the quality of marine and coastal environments cannot be practically realized through piecemeal efforts.  In order to properly conserve the Arctic Ocean in the face of extensive contamination from southern areas, effective cooperation must be achieved through international and national environmental policies and regulations.  Ideally, regulation concerning sewage treatment and resource extraction would be standardized throughout the region, but the complexity of national laws is thought to make this objective unrealistic.

As with many international regimes tasked with conserving the environment, the Arctic Council has a number of programs relating to protection of the Arctic marine environment, but has no regulatory authority.  Rayfuse argues that the Arctic Council lacks effective compliance and enforcement mechanisms.  This has brought criticism that the Arctic Council is unable, generally through disinterest in such regulation on the part of Arctic nations, to sufficiently manage the increasing impacts from shipping and military activities.  Many worry that if the international body is unable to tackle the current issues which challenge Arctic marine security, how will it be capable of dealing effectively with the inevitable increase of activities in the future, such as marine scientific research, bioprospecting, laying of cables and pipelines, and construction of all kinds of instillations for scientific research and resource extraction.

All of the above concerns, especially those issues relating to the increasing rise in Arctic temperatures, bring the viability of the Arctic Council as a mechanism of environmental conservation severely into doubt.  Indeed, when Timo Koivurova challenges the legitimacy of the Arctic Council on the grounds that it is unable to achieve its mandate, one must concede that the argument is strong:

"With the ACIA exposing the dramatic changes resulting from climate change to the Arctic environment, it is also possible to presume that climate change consequences call into question whether the Arctic Council should change its strategies, or even start reconsidering the basis of the regime, since, given the present structure and status of the Council, there is not much that it can do to contribute to mitigation of climate change; in particular, it is unable to make a positive contribution to the ongoing process of ecological-social adaptation in the Arctic region to the consequences of climate change."

While awareness of the issues threatening the Arctic environment and an understanding of the regions fragile nature and its overall importance to the global climate is widespread, there remains little political will to cooperatively implement effective conservation measures.  Upon further investigation, one must conclude that this is due to the nature of the organizational framework of the Arctic Council.

Koivurova takes the position that the consequences of climate change will eventually lead the members of the Council to move toward the establishment of a more comprehensive treaty, possibly modeled in the style of the Antarctic Treaty System, which suspends sovereignty claims over the region in favour of environmental conservation.  With its present status as an institutionally weak forum, Koivurova believes that the Arctic Council “can do little to induce sustainability in the region.”

The Arctic Council: A Common Failure

In conclusion, the Arctic Council’s capacity to successfully engage the extensive environmental challenges that threaten the Arctic is ultimately inadequate.  Exploitation of resources is likely to drastically increase.  And without a regional regulatory regime which is able to enforce stringent sustainable guidelines, there remain large concerns about the future for the Arctic environment in light of the huge potential for governmental and corporate revenues.

As noted above, Stephen Leahy believes that these concerns are being realized, evidenced by the fact that most nations are presently involved in a “scramble to exploit some of the most environmentally delicate regions of Earth.”  Leahy quotes A.H. Zakri, director of the United Nations University’s Yokohama-based Institute of Advanced Studies, as saying that “many experts believe this new rush to the polar regions is not manageable within existing international law.”

One must be inclined to agree with this assessment, as it would be impossible for governments to deny having adequate knowledge in order to properly judge the serious nature of the situation.  The Arctic Council has been provided with endless information in the form of assessments, reports, and working groups, which have had the effect of producing action plans which have turned out to be relatively inactive.  And without sincere and genuine implementation of effective conservation measures, particularly in response to climate change, there will be little positive fluctuation in current Arctic environmental trends.

References

1. David J. Tenenbaum, “Arctic Climate: The Heat Is On,” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol.113.2 (Feb. 2005) Web. 25 Oct. 2009.
2. Environment Canada, “Land-Based Pollution in the Arctic Ocean: Canadian Actions in a Regional and Global Context,” Arctic, vol. 61 (2008) 111   121. Web. 25 Oct 2009.
3. Koivurova, Timo. Alternatives for an Arctic Treaty: Evaluation and a New  Proposal. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008).
4. La Fayette, Louise Angelique de “Oceans Governance in the Arctic,” The  International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 23 (2008): 531-566. Academic Search Premiere. Web. 25 Oct 2009.
5. Leahy, Stephen. “Arctic Oil and Gas Rush Alarms Scientists,” Inter Press Service  News. Web. 25 Oct. 2009.
6. Rayfuse, Rosemary. Protecting Marine Biodiversity in Polar Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008).

Written by Christopher Campbell

Images Courtesy of Creative Commons

| More...