Arctic Matters

Conclusion

2010-10-03T10:20:00.001-04:00

Policy decisions in the Arctic can neither be considered in isolation or wait until the rush is on: the Arctic region needs to be protected and managed. In large part, a cooperative Arctic regime would be an environmental protection regime, designed to ensure that the region is developed in a sustainable fashion and that risks are accounted for when possible. Creating a legal regime should be undertaken now, not twenty or thirty years down the road. Contextual factors should drive nations to coordinate: there is only one chance to protect regional fisheries, endangered species such as the polar bear and whale breeding grounds in Lancaster Sound. Implementing a vessel piloting system in the Arctic will take time and should be begun as soon as possible. Case studies of Antarctic waterborne tourism should be conducted to identify best policies for the Arctic region, including limitations on both the number of tourist vessels and passengers as well as strict hull build specifications. Regionally integrated ice and hull regimes as well as a centrally controlled ship processing and monitoring system would provide better oversight of shipping in the region. In the end, however, these systems need to be backed by strong support from local Coast Guards. Such support will require new investment in Arctic-class icebreakers, in particular reinvestment by the United States in its icebreaking fleet. Russia has already demonstrated its commitment to rebuilding its Arctic fleet and Canada lacks the resources to physically patrol its entire Arctic coastline, so the United States must pick up the slack. A regional treaty system would address holes in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, minimize development’s impact on the region and through increased dialogue and information sharing between nations decrease the likelihood of military confrontation. Creating an effective regime to govern Arctic waters will ensure that the Arctic is well-protected, thus promoting an intergenerational transfer of the region’s wealth. In spite of the other-minded 2008 Ilulissat Declaration, a regional regime provides too many benefits to member nations and the Arctic region to be cast aside as a political impossibility. In reality, to protect the Arctic from excessive speculation in investment vehicles and environmental disaster the nations of the world need to create a regional management regime. Almost five decades ago, nations around the globe came together to protect the world’s other pole, and today circumstances again call for historic cooperation.

Denmark

2010-10-03T10:19:00.007-04:00

Denmark, which has a stake in the region through Greenland, should explore the oil and natural gas reserves off of Greenland. This could bring additional revenue to the 55,000 residents of Greenland as well as to the Danish government. However, the Danish government should approach this with the knowledge that reserves would be expensive to extract and the overall likelihood of any large oil, gas or mineral windfall is small. Denmark should also promote itself as a haven for scientific research, committing to the region diplomatically and scientifically while keeping costs to a minimum because it appears to have little to gain through high levels of investment. In particular, Denmark should not consider purchasing icebreakers.

Finland and Sweden

2010-10-03T10:19:00.005-04:00

Finland and Sweden are two Arctic nations with little negotiating power – neither has new territory to claim – who have similar interests moving forward. Primarily, they should encourage the implementation of strong vessel monitoring systems. This can be accomplished through a vocal presence at regional forums, for instance meetings of the Arctic Council, and a surface presence in the region. Sweden and Finland should also work jointly to ensure that shipping rules are safe and effective so that the two nations are not harmed by negative externalities that might stem from unsafe Arctic shipping.

Norway

2010-10-03T10:19:00.003-04:00

Through a commitment to increased Nordic security cooperation as outlined in the Stoltenberg Report, Norway has made it clear that it does not intend to take its role as an Arctic nation lightly - a wise policy stance given Norway’s proximity to Russia. In the future, Norway will be charged with protecting its own sovereignty from Russian infringement, particularly in the Svalbard Archipelago, where Russia maintains that it has fishing rights in Norwegian waters. Norway needs to continue to focus on regional policy and security cooperation while ensuring that increased offshore and onshore oil and gas operations do not result in environmental disasters. It must also effectively police its fisheries and because Northern Sea Route shipping will often pass through Norwegian waters should investigate expansion of its icebreaking capabilities (currently, Norway has two ice-class vessels), perhaps in conjunction with Russia. As a nation where oil and natural gas extraction occur in the same region fishermen depend on for their livelihood, strong policymaking and enforcement can help Norway emerge as a model of environmental stewardship.

Iceland

2010-10-03T10:19:00.001-04:00

Iceland has no new territory to claim in the Arctic, no navy or air force to speak of and a Coast Guard staffed by only three patrol boats, the newest of which was built in 1975. Iceland’s priorities in the Arctic are to maintain its fishing industry through effective regulation and to promote sustainable practices and scientific cooperation. Effective policy enforcement in Iceland’s Exclusive Economic Zone will require new investments in the Icelandic Coast Guard to ensure that the fleet, already minimal, does not fall into disrepair. Iceland should also pursue additional revenue from seabed oil and natural gas leases where it is ecologically sensible.

Canada

2010-10-03T10:18:00.005-04:00

Canada claims sovereignty over the second-largest Arctic coastline (Russia has the longest) yet is plagued by a lack of fiscal commitment to the region, exemplified by the country’s inability to follow through on a 1987 pledge to create a Polar Class 8 icebreaker. In the future, Canada should maintain a minimal surface presence in the Arctic region in order to assert sovereignty while forcing other nations to bear the cost of opening the Northwest Passage. Given Canada’s status as a Far North nation, the government should also encourage international scientific cooperation, particularly on warming of the Arctic, changing ecosystems, emissions of greenhouse gases from melting permafrost and these changes’ effects on indigenous people. Like the United States, Canada needs to make the Arctic an integral part of national policy rather than an afterthought. It should build and then seek to profit from new northern ports, including building rail lines to ship goods into the now inaccessible Canadian north. Canada will not be able to stop Arctic development, so it must seek to control and participate in the region’s growth.

United States

2010-10-03T10:18:00.003-04:00

The United States should awaken to its role as an Arctic nation. If the country expects to use the Northwest Passage more extensively, it must build more icebreakers. National security interests should drive politicians to seek broad international demilitarization commitments that will maximize the effectiveness of security expenditures in the region. To establish legal precedent for the country’s claim that the Northwest Passage is an international strait with right of innocent passage and overflight for aircraft, the United States should do everything possible to facilitate the safe and expeditious development of shipping through the Northwest Passage. In addition, as a world power and scientific leader the United States can be a leader on environmental protection issues and provide scientific support. Finally, the United States can use its extensive information network, including its Arctic radar system, and bargaining power to aid in information exchange and gathering as well as diplomacy.

Russia

2010-10-03T10:18:00.001-04:00

Russia, as the only nation with nuclear icebreakers and a stated commitment to turning the Arctic into its main resource base by 2020, should continue to build icebreakers capable of operating deep in Arctic territory. This will help to facilitate mineral, oil and gas development in its territory and enable shipping to occur on a more regular basis. In the near-term, Russia could also provide icebreaking services in non-Russian waters at a fee, for instance in the Northwest Passage. Russia should increase transparency about its Arctic operations in order to quell international concerns about its ambitions and commit to the effective disposal of spent nuclear fuel. In the future, Russia might serve as a model for monetizing and effectively policing northern sea routes while the country could utilize its icebreaking knowledge to gain a larger share of shipbuilding contracts for ice-capable vessels. Due to national security concerns, it would be surprising if Russia decided to allow its shipyards to build nuclear-powered icebreakers for foreign nations.

National Futures in the Arctic: Overview

2010-10-03T10:17:00.003-04:00

Under a new regional environmental management framework, the Arctic nations would continue to have different priorities and roles in the Arctic region on a case by case basis. For some, like Russia, natural resource extraction will remain a central short- and long-term objective. For others, like Iceland, effective enforcement of fisheries policies in their own and contiguous waters will be more important to the national economic outlook. In light of this, national priorities moving forward are briefly outlined below.

Icebreakers: a Necessary Investment?

2010-10-03T10:17:00.001-04:00

One major strategic issue for the Arctic nations surrounds future plans to build cost-intensive icebreakers. Indeed, a modern polar icebreaker costs well over one billion dollars. Icebreakers are a politically sensitive topic and have design and construction lead times of eight to ten years. Given that climate scientists now favor models which indicate total summer ice melt by 2030-2040, one might question the logic of new investments in icebreaking capabilities. Of course, whether to invest in new icebreakers is a politically charged issue and policy outcomes will differ on a nation-by-nation basis. However, some basic conclusions are outlined below.

On the whole, icebreakers represent a large investment for a minimal surface presence. They are slow, carry relatively large crews and are expensive to operate and maintain. Non-nuclear (in 2010, this implies non-Russian) icebreakers are limited in range by fuel considerations and can put to sea for only a few months at a time. In addition, icebreakers represent an easy surface target in the event of war. It would be impossible for even a sizable fleet of icebreakers to entirely patrol activity in the vast Arctic region.

On the other hand, icebreakers do serve a variety of roles in the polar world. Their very presence is a deterrent to rogue activity, for instance unauthorized Arctic voyages by non-Arctic class Chinese tankers. Icebreakers serve as scientific research platforms and thus represent crucial pieces of the global information network in the Arctic. Icebreakers have the potential to dramatically reduce the risk of shipping in the Arctic by providing icebreaking services to ships in transit. They can likewise help to keep Arctic shipping routes open for a longer season than might otherwise be possible. In the event of a serious environmental disaster, a well-positioned icebreaker could be the only surface vessel in a position to respond and provide ground support. Icebreakers can also work to enforce fisheries regulations and regularly inspect offshore oil and gas platforms to ensure compliance with best practices.

This paper advocates, therefore, that new icebreaker construction is in the case of the larger and better endowed Arctic nations, namely Russia and the United States, warranted. However, icebreakers should be seen as just one piece of the global Arctic infrastructure. Well-developed monitoring infrastructure, such as a comprehensive radar network, regular area overflights and a central command system, should complement icebreakers. Icebreakers should be used mainly for scientific and shipping support with occasional regulation enforcement duties when necessary. In even the most optimistic scenario, it would be 2018 before the United States could fully construct a polar class icebreaker. With full summer ice melt predicted by 2030-2040, more research into the type and number of vessels warranted is needed before such a significant investment is made. However, any country planning to build an icebreaker in the future should begin immediately to ensure that the vessel is put to proper use for the bulk of its service life. Tankers engaged in Arctic transit are a different matter entirely and construction should be mandated to Arctic-class specifications for all such vessels to minimize the risk of environmental disaster.

Search, Rescue and Environmental Cleanup

2010-10-03T10:16:00.006-04:00

Finally, there are the issues of search, rescue and environmental cleanup capacities. Unfortunately, as the Exxon Valdez disaster demonstrates, it is difficult to clean up even a small environmental disaster. In the Arctic, where there are few deepwater ports and severe weather as well as remoteness make operating conditions at best difficult, the scope of disaster cleanup tasks is magnified multifold. Indeed, as the recent wreck of the Chinese carrier Shen Neng 1 on the Great Barrier Reef demonstrates, officials and salvage crews are often helpless to do more than try and minimize the damage after an oil spill or other disaster has occurred. Preventive measures, therefore, such as required regional accredited pilots, strong construction standards, a comprehensive ice regime, good vessel monitoring and high levels of precaution in granting vessel clearance, are likely to provide the best insurance again disaster per dollar spent. The Arctic nations should, however, investigate the creation of a joint disaster response facility staffed by aircraft and waterborne vessels with cleanup capabilities. To ensure quick response time, each nation and shippers themselves should be required to pay into a disaster relief pool on a fee basis (annually for nations) that would be used to cover operating expenses in the event of disasters.

Search and rescue operations, on the other hand, can be handled through the enhancement of current operations. In particular, search and rescue operations should focus on tourist vessels, commercial and non-commercial, since operators of cargo vessels, oil platforms and other non-tourist commercial vessels frequently remain on site even after a disaster occurs. Therefore, the Arctic Treaty should identify key strategic locations for northern Coast Guard bases. In countries without a strong Coast Guard infrastructure, such as Iceland, the eight nations should work together to build an operational search and rescue base. Taken together, the national bases should have the scope to cover disasters across the Arctic region. However, if a large tourist vessel is stricken in the region even a fleet of rescue helicopters would be unlikely to be able to offload all passengers efficiently. In light of this, Arctic vessels should be required to carry extra emergency supplies, including drysuits for all passengers, to ensure that passengers have the ability to survive an extended rescue operation. Cost-sharing for search and rescue operations will be a matter of contention, with the most likely compromise a system in which nations, the rescued and their insurers all bear some portion of the costs. Nonetheless, if waterborne activity within the Arctic is to increase then sophisticated search and rescue capabilities will be necessary. Clearly, commercial aircraft operation over the open waters of the Arctic would pose another issue entirely, but the infrastructure for such a system would be largely similar.

Such initiatives in the Arctic might be politically unfavorable because of their short-term costs. However, in the long term these policies represent a small investment with the potential for dramatic savings. Initiatives to keep the Arctic a secure and conflict-free zone will save money by reducing national defense budgets for Arctic nations. Making the region a no go, no dump zone for military nuclear operation will save money on future clean-ups and help to preserve the ecological health of the region as well as the health of its human inhabitants. Funding future scientific research will allow global leaders to make more complete, information-based policy decisions. Strict enforcement of shipping regulations such as the hull and ice regimes will reduce the chance of disaster, thus serving as cheap risk insurance. Strong fisheries, farming and forestry management policies will ensure that future generations are able to draw on regional resources, thus promoting intergenerational wealth transfers and long-term economic stability. In addition, an effective negotiated multilateral environmental regime in the Arctic would send a message to the world that the Arctic nations are committed to capitalizing on their one chance to protect this valuable ecological region.

Tourism

2010-10-03T10:16:00.003-04:00

Higher tourist traffic will be a two-edged sword for the Arctic regions. With the new money tourism brings into the region will come environmental hazards and other concerns. Tourist boats should be required to adhere to the same hull and ice regimes as all other vessels. In addition, tourist vessels should pay into a disaster relief fund annually to help offset the cost of any sort of search and rescue or environmental cleanup operation that might stem from their presence. Tourism should be strictly limited to a certain number of vessels or passengers per year, with the quota perhaps increasingly annually from a small base to an eventual cap in order to develop best practices through experience. This would help to ensure that the region is not overdeveloped and does not become overly dependent on tourism revenues.

Prohibiting all Hazardous Waste Disposal

2010-10-03T10:16:00.001-04:00

Beyond nuclear waste, hazardous waste import and disposal in the Arctic are critical matters. Restrictions on the substance classes permitted to be dumped in the deep Arctic waters would help to provide a legal basis for action against parties who are not living up to their obligations. Ships’ ballast water should not be allowed to be changed in the Arctic, since this could introduce alien species to the region. In addition, no open disposal of trash or sewage, including through the use of a macerator, should be allowed. This would send a message that the Arctic nations recognize that the world’s other oceans have been mismanaged and that they are determined not to make the same mistakes in the Arctic.

Prohibiting Nuclear Pollution

2010-10-03T10:15:00.005-04:00

The Arctic is home to the world’s two major nuclear powers – the United States and Russia – neither of whom has a strong history of best practices in the region with regards to nuclear disposal. It is essential that the Arctic is made a nuclear “no dump” zone, with strict and readily enforceable penalties for a violating nation, perhaps through an escrow account. As the Soviet submarine and icebreaking fleet ages, this becomes increasingly important – indeed, the Soviets are currently capable of projecting only one submarine at a time at sea. The Soviets might request financial assistance to better dispose of nuclear waste. United States vessels should be subject to the same standards as Russian vessels. An independent non-governmental monitoring organization should be given full access to nuclear ships in order to assure that best practices are followed.

Indigenous Peoples

2010-10-03T10:15:00.003-04:00

With approximately four million inhabitants and a dearth of economic activity, the Arctic nations could help the indigenous tribes they have so often exploited by providing further economic opportunities for them. These peoples’ regional memory is unsurpassed and of tangible value to any regime aimed at sustainable development of the region. Funding indigenous education can raise awareness about Arctic issues and help to generate job growth in native economies. Indigenous tribes, particularly in Greenland, could thus position themselves to receive a piece of the growing regional economic pie. An Arctic Treaty can also mandate that some of the jobs created in the region go to the people who have historically lived there.

Education

2010-10-03T10:15:00.001-04:00

An Arctic Treaty would also serve a variety of educational purposes. First, the treaty body could maintain a website where all Arctic-related news and policies are centrally disseminated. Through increased transparency and better communication of policies, the Arctic nations could breed cooperation rather than distrust. Increased dialogue among nations, already occurring within the Arctic Council, would promote regional security and likely dissuade nations from taking renegade policy stances. In turn, this would serve to keep the public better informed and more aware of current events and policy stances in the Arctic region.

Fisheries Management

2010-10-03T10:14:00.006-04:00

Fisheries management under an Arctic regime would become an international matter, with a comprehensive legal regime that protects all fisheries in the area (there are currently exploitable gaps in the protected areas). This would discourage nations from treading on other nations’ fishing grounds. It would also reduce coordination problems, eliminating situations in which one nation establishes a sustainable quota but its neighbor does not and the fishery as a whole is overfished. Regional rather than national data on total fish catches would also allow experts to better monitor fishery health and to adjust fisheries policy accordingly. High seas fisheries management, as evidenced by overfished North Atlantic fishing grounds, has traditionally been highly ineffectual; in the Arctic, creating an international fisheries management regime would promote dialogue and reduce national tensions while simultaneously facilitating stronger overall fisheries practices.

Protecting Endangered Species

2010-10-03T10:14:00.004-04:00

What would be the regime’s role in protecting Arctic waters and the associated ecosystems? First, an Arctic regime should incorporate protection for offshore feeding areas of polar bears and other endangered species. Current legal regimes fail to provide this protection. The Arctic regime can comfortably draw on precedent in the Antarctic by establishing specially protected areas in ecologically sensitive regions. Such legislative protection would be an acknowledgement by the Arctic nations that the entire food chain needs to be subject to management practices.

Promoting Sound Environmental Land Use

2010-10-03T10:14:00.002-04:00

Since domestic regimes apply to land areas in the Arctic region, any cooperative Arctic regime must focus on water rather than land. However, the Arctic states could jointly recommend beneficial domestic land-based policies. For instance, they might seek to curtail over-foresting and protect reindeer grazing grounds that are important to native peoples. In addition, restrictions on pesticide use in the region would be an important step towards minimizing the environmental impact of increased Arctic farming.

Uniformity of Ice Charting

2010-10-03T10:13:00.005-04:00

To minimize risk of operator error and facilitate ease of use, ice charts should be disseminated under a uniform system, rather than under the several different graphic schemes presently employed. This would ensure that captains can interpret ice charts across regions. To minimize switching costs, the charts should be published under both current and integrated systems for a number of years with new captains instructed in the integrated system and old captains still able to check old system ice charts that match their already acquired knowledge.

Regionally Licensed Captains

2010-10-03T10:13:00.003-04:00

An Arctic regime would also require that regionally licensed captains be made available along every sea route and required for cargo vessels transiting the Northern Sea Route and Northwest Passages. These captains would be certified pilots like those required in other parts of the world for navigating sensitive and dangerous areas, such as areas near major metropolises. To minimize the risk of operator error, pilots should have to meet different accreditation requirements for the Northern Sea Route and Northwest Passage Captains should be required to keep up a minimum of service time in the region, similar to current United States Coast Guard or other international captaincy requirements, in order to maintain their regional licenses.

Data-Based Hull and Ice Regimes

2010-10-03T10:13:00.001-04:00

If data on vessel build specifications were properly collected, this data would also allow for more complete hull and ice classifications to be created based on real-world data analysis. Hull and ice classification regimes should be made consistent internationally, with vessel clearance a duty of the Arctic shipping command unit. Enforcement of hull and ice regimes would then fall to national coast guards and other military units such as a national navy or air force if appropriate. While these units would be authorized to use force if necessary, the threat of force rather than the use of deadly force will often be enough to turn a rogue captain around without serious confrontation.

Open Exchange of Usage Information

2010-10-03T10:12:00.006-04:00

Data collected by the central command unit could be made easily available to individual nations to promote national security. Information about vessel type, location, speed, port of origin and destination of Arctic vessels should be public information made available globally via the internet through this central organization. On an interactive map of the region, governments would then be able to track Arctic ships along their voyages. On this map, vessel indicator icons should include a link to the ship’s ice classification as well as photographs of the vessel and other pertinent design information. Such transparency would ease national security concerns and help to ensure that the Arctic does not become a conflict zone.

This central command agency would also be responsible for maintaining data on Arctic shipping, including time trends. Such data could be used to assess growth rates in Arctic shipping as well as to assess factors contributing to disasters including vessel class, port of origin and navigational route used. Time trend data could provide consistent, non-partisan evidence in international courts of law to establish or refute the status of waterways as international straits.

Central Vessel Monitoring

2010-10-03T10:12:00.003-04:00

In keeping with this spirit of increased cooperation, quality information exchange of both scientific and non-scientific information on an increased scale is needed in the Arctic. Each of the following roles would facilitate best management practices in the region. First, global ship tracking and monitoring systems should be integrated. Namely, a central command unit funded by the Arctic nations and endowed with complete oversight capabilities should clear, track and oversee all Arctic shipping. This would allow threats to be monitored constantly, provide transparency about Arctic activities, and permit ships in imminent danger – for instance, a vessel traveling close to navigational hazards – to be properly alerted and diverted. At the same time, a central monitoring system would allow infrastructure costs to be spread amongst the nations.

Overview

2010-10-03T10:12:00.001-04:00

There are a variety of roles a cooperative Arctic environmental management regime should play that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and domestic legal regimes fail to fill. First, a cooperative regime can encourage further scientific research and scientific cooperation, both of which are desperately needed. The world community must develop a more informed portrait of the region, its ecosystems and how specific components such as native fish populations might react to exogenous shocks including warming water temperatures. A stronger commitment to research on ice decline, including why it is occurring and its broad consequences, would allow scientists to create better projections of future ice melt and provide politicians the opportunity to shape policy off of these improved assumptions. Further geological surveys would also provide more accurate insight into the amount of recoverable oil, gas and mineral resources in the Arctic.