Multi-polar at the pole

By David Gordon

A few years ago, experts came together to discuss potential scenarios for the Arctic. The discussion focused on what the Arctic would look like in 50 years in the face of climate change and intensified resource development.

The experts developed several scenarios, ranging from a race by countries to extract natural resources to armed military conflict, from protecting the Arctic for its natural wonders to a vision of sustainable development that brought economic wealth to local peoples. After Russia planted its flag on the North Pole, news outlets trumpeted the likelihood of a new "cold war" with conflict brewing in the Arctic.

Russia held a conference Sept. 22-23 to try to dispel this preconception. At the conference, called "The Arctic:  A Territory of Dialogue," diplomats and scientists from 15 countries talked about the importance of working together to address the challenges facing the Arctic. Speeches by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Prince Albert II of Monaco and Icelandic President Ólafur Ragnar Grimsson gave an official air to the discussions.

Diplomats pointed to processes already in place, like the Arctic Council, as evidence that conflicts in the Arctic can be resolved peacefully. A recent boundary dispute settled between Russia and Norway further underscored the opportunities for peaceful resolutions of boundary issues.

There is good reason to believe that countries will find peaceful ways to resolve seabed claims in the Arctic. However, other conflicts are brewing over the area. These conflicts are not between nation-states, but rather between large oil and gas companies and local communities. Oil and gas companies are finding it harder and harder to locate new large oil and gas deposits. This forces these companies to look for new deposits in deeper water, as is the case in the Gulf of Mexico, and in more remote places, like the Arctic.

The affected local communities are particularly concerned about the potential impact of oil and gas development on their subsistence, their livelihoods and their cultures. For example, indigenous peoples in Arctic Alaska depend on marine mammal hunting for their subsistence and fear that offshore oil and gas extraction will destroy their culture. This is why the Native Village of Point Hope in Alaska joined with environmental groups to challenge Shell's proposed drilling in the Chukchi Sea. Offshore drilling plans in Alaska are the world's most advanced. Had it not been for the terrible tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico and the subsequent decision by the Obama Administration to delay Arctic drilling, Shell would have begun drilling for oil this summer.

Shell has not heeded requests by local communities to slow down its rush to drill for oil in the Chukchi Sea. Local communities are asking that Shell take more time to study the potential impact of oil and gas drilling on whales and other marine mammals. So far, Shell has refused, and continues to push ahead to drill as soon as it can.

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a wake-up call for everyone concerned about ocean conservation. Indigenous peoples in Alaska worry that a similar spill in the Arctic would destroy their "garden," the Arctic Ocean. The United States mounted a staggeringly large response to the Gulf of Mexico spill, including more than 25,000 people, more than 3,800 vessels and more than 3 million meters of boom. No response like this could be mounted in the remote parts of the Arctic if a similar spill were to occur there. Difficult weather conditions and long periods of darkness would make it virtually impossible to respond to a spill, and the oil industry does not yet know how to respond effectively to oil spills in icy conditions.

These conflicts are likely to grow in coming years as resource-extraction companies launch projects in the Arctic. At the Arctic Forum in Moscow, Putin said that "not a single industrial project in the Russian Arctic will be implemented without due consideration for the most stringent environmental requirements. This is the principled stance of the Russian government."  

These words are a good start, although Russian environmentalists are understandably skeptical that Putin will follow through, as they have seen too many projects implemented with weak safeguards. After all, Putin is the leader who signed a decree in January 2010 to allow the pollution of Lake Baikal, a world treasure, from a pulp and paper mill. And just a month ago, the Russian government hurriedly approved plans for large-scale seismic exploration - a precursor to oil and gas development - throughout the Arctic and the Russian Far East, despite significant environmental concerns.

Thankfully, Putin has called for a clean-up of toxic military waste in Russia's Arctic. Russian environmentalists have called for such a clean-up for decades, as old stockpiles of military waste are scattered throughout Russia's North. Putin's commitment is a good start, and the Russian government should follow through by allocating needed funding.  If this one commitment from the conference is implemented, it will be a huge victory for the Arctic and the people who live there.

Prince Albert II of Monaco - a longtime Arctic explorer and enthusiast - called for better protection of the Arctic, including the development of marine protected areas.  While it may seem strange for a head of state from a Mediterranean country to be concerned about the Arctic, his participation is just further evidence of a growing understanding of the Arctic's importance to the entire world.

One approach to Prince Albert's call for marine protected areas is to map and designate culturally and ecologically important areas of the Arctic. As the Arctic opens up to new shipping routes, this protection will become even more critical. The International Maritime Organization is negotiating a new Polar Code to govern shipping in the world's polar regions. This code provides an important opportunity to protect the Arctic by requiring strict environmental standards.

Speakers at the conference agreed:  The Arctic is changing. Climate change is affecting the Arctic and its communities more than other regions, and new shipping routes and increased resource extraction will also change Arctic communities.  

In the end, Russia's initiative to hold this high-level conference is a good one. Any opportunity that engages people from different countries around the Arctic should be welcomed. It's not yet clear, though, what the future holds for the region. Will it be a future of conflict between large oil companies and local communities? Or will local communities be able to chart their own future? We still don't know what will be the future reality for the Arctic. This conference was just a small step that needs to be followed by real action.

- The author is executive director of Pacific Environment (www.pacificenvironment.org), an NGO that protects the living environment of the Pacific Rim by supporting local communities in having a larger voice on environmental issues. He attended the Arctic conference in Moscow.