Arctic Governance: Emerging Challenges New Opportunities

1
Arctic GovernanceEmerging Challenges - New
Opportunities

• Oran R. Young
• University of California at Santa Barbara
• Moscow 13 March 2008

2
The 1970s/1980s Arctic Geopolitics

• The Cold War divided the Arctic roughly in half
  with the Soviet Union on one side and the United
  States and its NATO allies on the other.
• Interest focused on the Arctic as
• A safe theater of operations for strategic
  weapons systems (e.g. nuclear submarines carrying
  SLBMs)
• A secure storehouse of raw materials (e.g.
  oil/gas)
• The situation was not conducive to transbounday
  cooperation
• Exception the 1973 polar bear agreement

3
The 1990s - The Arctic Emergent

• The emergence of the Arctic as a distinct region
  with a policy agenda of its own
• The waning of the Cold War released a burst of
  energy favoring regional cooperation
• Gorbachevs October 1987 Arctic zone of peace
  speech
• As a region, the Arctic is unusual some would
  even say unnatural encompassing a diverse
  collection of parts of states rather than a group
  of states like the Middle East
• Nonetheless, a regional policy agenda has
  emerged environmental protection, cultural
  integrity, legal/political devolution, and, more
  broadly, sustainable development
• The rise of regional mechanisms to address
  transboundary issues and common concerns in the
  Circumpolar North
• AEPS/AC, NF, BEAR, IASC, UArctic

4
Arctic Accomplishments

• Even in the absence of legally-binding rules,
  formal decisionmaking authority, or substantial
  organizational capacity, cooperation in the
  Arctic has produced significant results
• The role of the Arctic Council as a prominent
  case
• Setting the agenda, establishing priorities, and
  framing the issues
• The role of assessments (e.g. pollution, climate
  change, human development)
• The shift from environmental protection to
  sustainable development
• Contrast with the Antarctic
• Developing new social practices, often on an
  informal basis
• The recognized role of indigenous peoples
  organizations and other non-state actors
• Projecting the voice of the Arctic in global
  settings
• Contaminants/pollutants (e.g. AMAP/POPs)
• Climate change (e.g. ACIA/IPCC)
• Indigenous rights (e.g. UN Declaration on the
  Rights of Indigenous Peoples)
• Human Development (e.g. AHDR/UNHDI)

5
The 2000s - Geopolitics Redux

• Renewed geopolitical prominence of the Arctic
  largely as a result of the impacts of outside
  forces and interests
• Continuing role of the Arctic as a sink for
  airborne and waterborne pollutants
• Arctic haze, POPs
• Climate Change in the Far North
• Climate change is a reality in the Arctic the
  impact on infrastructure and normal activities is
  already profound
• Identification of the Arctic as an indicator
  region or a climate canary doesnt alleviate
  regional/local impacts
• Upsurge of economic interests visions and
  realities
• Offshore oil and gas development
• Arctic fisheries North Atlantic/North Pacific
• Arctic shipping NSR, NW passage, over the top
• Resultant interest in jurisdictional claims
• Who owns or exercises authority over the
  Arctic?
• Are we on the verge of an Arctic Black Gold
  Rush?

6
Some cautionary notes

• Scary scenarios
• Who owns the Arctic? Time magazine cover story
  (1 October 2007)
• Diplomatic gridlock could lead the Arctic to
  erupt in an armed mad dash for its resources.
  Borgerson, Foreign Affairs (March/April 2008)
• But lest we get carried away spinning scary
  scenarios
• New jurisdictional claims pertain mainly to the
  continental shelf beyond the limits of EEZs
  (UNCLOS Art. 76)
• Oil and gas development is likely to stay well
  within existing EEZs for some time to come
• Arctic shipping is not a simple matter of the
  smooth sailing two-dimensional maps seem to
  suggest
• special guidelines are already in place (IMO
  Guidelines)
• It is by no means certain that the Arctic
  can/will support significant commercial fisheries

7
Toward a New Arctic Order

• Nevertheless, we should be thinking now about how
  to respond to the rising demand for governance in
  the Arctic.
• Existing arrangements are significant but not
  sufficient
• Many respond by calling for some sort of
  Arctic-wide, comprehensive, and legally binding
  treaty even an Arctic Charter.
• Analogy to experience with the Antarctic Treaty
  System (ATS)
• The ideal way to manage the Arctic would be to
  develop an overarching treaty that guarantees an
  orderly and collective approach to extracting the
  regions wealth Borgerson, Foreign Affairs
  (March/April 2008)
• But does this ideal make sense under the
  circumstances prevailing in the Circumpolar North
  today?
• For starters, it seems utopian both politically
  and legally
• But leaving that aside, would we find such an
  arrangement desirable even if it were feasible?
• To answer this question, we must think about the
  nature and role of governance in an increasingly
  complex world

8
Points to Ponder

• Reasons why a classical intergovernmental
  arrangement may NOT be the best recipe in the
  Arctic
• Actors
• Non-state actors (e.g. IPOs, NGOs. MNCs, lower
  levels of government) have become major players
  in the Arctic and have much to contribute
• Hard/soft law
• Legally binding arrangements are clumsy
  instruments that are apt to cause trouble in
  highly dynamic settings
• Arctic-wide
• Major challenges result from forces originating
  outside the Arctic
• Comprehensive
• There are many distinct human activities with
  their own casts of characters, agendas, and
  practices at work in the Arctic
• Examples shipping, fishing, security
• The circumstances of marine and terrestrial
  systems differ sharply
• Would a regime limited to the central Arctic
  Basin make sense?

9
So, what is the way forward?

• We need a tripartite governance complex for the
  Arctic that can
• Stabilize jurisdictional claims and boundary
  issues
• Enhance the role of the Arctic Council as an
  umbrella body dedicated to agenda setting and
  amplifying the voice of the Arctic
• Integrate the contributions of a collection of
  issue-specific and rule-based regimes

10
Stabilizing limits and boundaries

• Recognizing established jurisdictional limits and
  generally accepted boundaries
• Clear contrast with Antarctica in the 1950s
• Freezing contentious boundary issues and new
  jurisdictional claims
• Value of the precedent set in Art. 4 of the AT
• At least initially, an agreement among the 5
  Arctic littoral states would do the trick
• Moving toward collaborative arrangements based on
  the idea of trusteeship
• Rules of use in contrast to rights of ownership
  or control

11
Enhancing the role of the Arctic Council as a
high-level forum

• An agreement among the Arctic 8 to highlight the
  role of the AC
• While keeping its decisionmaking authority and
  organizational capacity to a minimum
• Compare the role of the North Sea Conferences in
  conjunction with the OSPAR regime
• Well-defined functions of a renewed AC
• Articulating the overarching goal of sustainable
  development and devising tools to measure
  progress
• Establishing priorities and setting the Arctic
  agenda
• Addressing institutional interactions among
  issue-specific regimes
• Focusing on relations with the outside world
• Enhanced participation in an updated AC
• An enlarged role for key non-Arctic states (e.g.
  China, Japan, the EU)
• The Antarctic precedent of (non)consultative
  parties
• An enhanced role for key non-state actors (e.g.
  subnational governments, NGOs)
• The idea of a level of effort standard

12
Integrating issue-specific regimes

• The need for regulatory arrangements that provide
  rules regarding issues like pollution, human
  health, shipping, energy development, fishing,
  the protection of biodiversity, and so forth
• Examples Polar Code/IMO Guidelines for ships
  operating in Arctic ice-covered waters (2002),
  MARPOL Special Area designation
• Of course, there is room for improvement
• Links to the Arctic Council
• The AC as coordinator/facilitator in cases of
  interplay
• Links to broader processes involving bodies like
  IMO, UNEP, WHO, FAO, IEA, UNDP, and so forth
• Arctic/global connections

13
The 2010sSuch a tripartite system would allow us
to address the Arctic Grand Challenge

• Moving toward ecosystem-based management while at
  the same time respecting the rights of the
  Arctics indigenous peoples, enhancing human
  development in the Circumpolar North, and
  pursuing sustainable development in a large
  region featuring high and increasing levels of
  human activities
• The example of Antarctica is pertinent but the
  Arctic needs a governance system of its own.

14
ORAN R. YOUNG Co-director Young_at_Bren.ucsb.edu
Phone [phone] Fax [phone]