Karen Ellemann: Arctic on the threshold of change
As chairperson for the Nordic Council of Ministers it is a special pleasure for me to be here today to address an area also a part of the Nordic cooperation – the Arctic.
I can safely tell you that we find many different opinions about what kind of cooperation – or governance if you will – that should be in place in the Arctic.
Let me first put the Arctic in perspective.
The Arctic region is a vast area of more than 30 million square kilometers. It is about one sixth of the Earth's land area. The population living in the Arctic is about 4 million people, of which one third consists of over 30 different groupings of indigenous peoples, for instance the Samis and Inuits. During the time of the Cold War there was great global political interest in the Arctic, but as the Cold War died, so did the focus on the Arctic. However, global warming has in recent years spawned renewed attention from the world community towards the Arctic region. The consequences of a changing climate will impact the diversity and fragility of the Arctic environment, which is unique and requires special focus in the light of the many changes that are occurring, including the fast growing development in marine shipping, offshore oil and gas.
The melting of the sea ice will provide an easier access to natural resources, such as gas and oil, and new shipping routes will occur. This will create new opportunities and people and states outside the Arctic are reflecting trying to understand the consequences for themselves and the world. However new opportunities comes with responsibility and demands caution and actions nationally and internationally from Arctic states and non-arctic states to provide for sustainable use of the marine environment in light of the multifaceted challenges facing the Arctic.
Unfortunately – for those awaiting the opportunity to rush to the Arctic – the Arctic is not terra nullus, where everyone can do as he pleases. The landmass is regulated by the laws of each arctic country and in 2008, at the initiative of the Danish Foreign Minister and the Premier of Greenland, the five Arctic Ocean coastal states agreed in the Ilulissat-declaration for the Arctic Ocean to base themselves on the law of the sea and to solve any disputes in peaceful negotiations on the basis of that legal framework. It has been estimated that 97 % of the resources under the Arctic Ocean are covered by this agreement and is to be found in the economic zones, which means that there is almost nothing left for others to share, if resources should be discovered. In other words, there is not much left to disagree about. So, if you should remember just one of my points here today, let it be this: The Arctic is not – and will not – be an area of conflict, no matter how much of the ice sheet should melt or how fast. All Arctic states agree on a peaceful future for the Arctic. Just see how Russia and Norway did it in the Barents Sea a short while ago.
What about other questions concerning the region? How is it affected by global pollution and emissions of pollutants and green house gases ? What are the consequences of the melting ice? What happens to the living conditions of the indigenous peoples and other inhabitants of the Arctic, and what are the global implications and consequences of the observed changes and the pollution of the Arctic? Vulnerable ecosystems in the Arctic are already threatened. Traditional hunting and fishing are suffering as sea mammals and fish change their patterns of migration. The wildlife resources necessary to sustain human life are changing location. This might put the living conditions of the 4 million Arctic inhabitants at risk. Will it be possible to secure a sustainable development in the Arctic? We know that it will be a challenge to ensure predictable conditions not least because the uncertainty of how fast the impacts of climate changes will occur. The adaptability of small arctic societies will be put to a test. Other concerns are pollution - What to do here? And, most importantly, how do we handle these, both challenges and opportunities? And how do we handle this together with our neighbors? In a number of instances we only have the possibility of adapting to changing circumstances – for example the raise in sea water level – in other instances we have to act in a timely fashion to the challenges facing us in the Arctic.
In light of the diversity and fragility of the Arctic environment and the need for special focus in this sensitive area I have in my capacity as Minister for the environment together with my college from Greenland taken the initiative to invite my Arctic colleges to a meeting in IIulissat, Greenland in June 2010. The meeting will be an informal dialogue on the international commitment to reduce the environmental impacts from the fast-growing development in marine shipping and offshore oil and gas, and the consequences of a changing climate in this sensitive area.
We don’t need a new treaty on the Arctic as some wishes to deal with the issues facing the Arctic. We have – apart from the Arctic States – not only the Nordic Council of ministers and its widespread activities - also the Arctic Council – the only circumpolar, political forum where the challenges and opportunities in the Arctic – the overall governance of the region – can be discussed by both the states and the peoples of the Arctic. The Arctic Council is the only international body that can balance different considerations, pave the way for development based on high environmental standards, protect the unique Arctic environment and biodiversity and put the peoples of the Arctic at the centre of the debate on the future for the Arctic – in short, doing the best to secure sustainable development. The Arctic Council is, in fact, the answer, when you ask about forming ideas about the future for the Arctic. The core of the present day Arctic Council work is protection and development of the Arctic. Its work is based on science and knowledge collected and assessed by the working groups of the Council. The output is reports that can serve as a basis for sound political decisions regarding the development of the Arctic area - decisions that are taken by the Arctic States, Arctic Communities and international organisations.
The Arctic Council is probably the most unique forum in international cooperation that exists. Its members are not only the eight Arctic states (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia and the United States), but also organisations representing the indigenous peoples living in the Arctic countries. This means that the indigenous peoples of the Arctic have their own voice without having to agree with the national representative from the country in which they live. In my opinion, this is an amazing example of democracy. The Arctic Council has no common budget, and its secretariat is temporary – financed by Norway – and consisting of three persons. The Council is not a decision-making, but a decision-shaping body, meaning that its decisions and recommendations are intended to show results at the regional or national levels as well as in the form of actual decisions in other organisations – for instance in the International Maritime Organisation. And finally, it is a consensus-based forum hereby ensuring that all Arctic states agree on the Councils decisions.
And it works! The Arctic Council has in its short time of living delivered a long line of important contributions to the benefit of the Arctic and its peoples.
It has been operating for almost 14 years by now. The Arctic Council has a long and valuable tradition in the environmental field which of course has my special attention. Allow me to mention a few examples: The documentation of the high levels of man-made toxins such as for instance DDT in the Arctic, has played a pivotal role in the forming of an international convention out-phasing the use of man made persistent organic toxins – the Stockholm Convention and I believe that the current discussions on an internationally binding agreement on mercury pollution is also spurred by the Arctic evidence of the nature and effects of emissions of this highly toxic heavy metal. Another prominent example of the joint efforts of the council is the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment from 2005. This assessment opened the eyes of the world to the consequences of the Arctic melt down, at the local, the regional as well as the global level.
The Council is also currently working on an Arctic Biodiversity Assessment, which I believe will also create a sound basis foundation on which political decision at all levels can be based.
Numerous other large and small reports, projects and initiatives have contributed significantly to our knowledge and understanding of the Arctic. In this way the Council has had a direct or indirect influence on the people living in the Arctic – but also to the rest of the world in providing updated and credible facts about Arctic issues and their global implications.
It is always debatable if an organization is sufficient powerful in face of the problems to be solved. We have a number of organizations each dealing with parts of the Arctic reality and I would wish that those organizations within their own specific area of concern would put the question to themselves if they are up to the job – and if not then to adjust to the new realities.
Within the Nordic cooperation Arctic issues have high priority, and there are substantial synergies between the Nordic Cooperation and work of the Arctic Council, where Nordic countries most often share views on priorities, as reflected in the joint chairmanship priority paper developed for the 3 consecutive chairmanships of Norway, the Kingdom of Denmark and Sweden. We have furthermore an Arctic cooperation program, where we – in close cooperation with countries within the Arctic Council - try to support social and cultural development for the inhabitants of the Arctic and several other aspects related to the Arctic.
Within the Nordic Council of Ministers we have – just as an example - allocated 1 mill. Danish kroner to a project labeled “Megatrends in the Arctic” – we hope that the outcome of this study will help arctic organizations to focus their interest to future challenges.
Until now Arctic Council has been a framework for a constructive and friendly general cooperation among the countries and peoples of the Arctic. This is what is labeled as “soft security” and we – as Arctic stakeholders - value that. The Arctic has been and is an area of peace and stability. Our task is to secure that this will also be the case in the future and that we manage the Arctic resources sustainably. I can also see merits in strengthening the Arctic Council in order to adapt it to changing realities.
Thank you for listening.
