Ruling the Waves Or Waiving the Rules?

MAGAZINE The Great Upwelling 6 No. 2 Building common interests 12 2016 The Circle Ecosystem-based management 17

Ruling the Waves or Waiving the Rules?

PUBLISHED BY THE WWF Global ARCTIC PROGRAMME

TheCircle0216.indd 1 27.05.2016 10.59 The Circle 2.2016 Arctic marine governance

Contents EDITORIAL Navigating marine governance 3 In Brief 4 Kuupik Vandersee Kleist Community consultations on “The Great Upwelling” 6 Kanako Hasegawa The regional seas agreements: lessons learned 9 Paul Berkman and Alexander N. Vylegzhanin Building common Interests 12 Alistair Graham The conundrum: conserving biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction 14 Betsy Baker Ecosystem based management: a flexible tool for stewardship 17 Erik Molenaar The evolution of the Arctic Council and the Arctic Council System 19 Options for Arctic marine cooperation: the WWF vision 22 The picture 24

The Circle is published quar- Publisher: Editor in Chief: Clive Tesar, COVER: terly by the WWF Global Arctic WWF Global Arctic Programme [email protected] A magnificent profusion of life as a Programme. Reproduction and 8th floor, 275 Slater St., Ottawa, humpback whale dives amidst thou- quotation with appropriate credit ON, Canada K1P 5H9. Managing Editor: Becky Rynor, sands of seabirds. Alaska. 2005. The are encouraged. Articles by non- Tel: +1 613-232-8706 [email protected] NOAA Ship OSCAR DYSON is in the affiliated sources do not neces- Fax: +1 613-232-4181 distance. sarily reflect the views or policies Design and production: Photo: Dr. Phillip Clapham, NMFS/AKFSC/NMML – Creative Commons of WWF. Send change of address Internet: www.panda.org/arctic Film & Form/Ketill Berger, and subscription queries to the [email protected] ABOVE: U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker address on the right. We reserve ISSN 2073-980X = The Circle Healy cuts through thick multiyear sea the right to edit letters for publica- Printed by St. Joseph Communications ice in the Arctic Ocean. July 6, 2011. tion, and assume no responsibil- Date of publication: Photo: NASA/Kathryn Hansen – Creative Commons ity for unsolicited material. May 2016. Thank you for your interest in The Circle. Many of our subscribers have moved to an e-version. To receive an electronic copy in your email instead of a paper 2 The Circle 2.2016 copy, please write to us at [email protected] and help us reduce our costs and footprint.

TheCircle0216.indd 2 27.05.2016 15.52 The Circle 2.2016 Editorial Navigating marine governance

The Arctic Council was set up twenty years ago with a states’ authority in the Arctic area beyond national juris- focus on conservation and sustainable development in diction, and the role of non-Arctic states. Some states the Arctic region including its marine realm. Since then from outside the Arctic have long experience of joint we have seen the dizzying downward spiral of Arctic management of marine areas. Kanako Hasegawa shares sea ice due to climate change. We have seen fish stocks UNEP’s experience of regional seas agreements and les- moving around the Arctic, fleeing warming waters or sons learned. Alistair Graham examines those portions chasing moving food sources. We have seen the cata- of the Arctic Ocean beyond national jurisdiction, and how strophic failure of a deep sea drilling rig as well as nations international tools already developed or in development and businesses preparing for a future where the Arctic may interact with those being developed by Arctic states, Ocean is more liquid more of the time. To deal with these a theme also explored by Eric Molenaar. changes, the Arctic Council must change. The Council Governments are not the only entities with an inter- has laid much groundwork for responding to changing est in management of the seas. Kuupik Kleist writes of conditions with its reports and policy recommendations. an Inuit-led commission examining the An evolving Council now needs to Pikialasorsuaq focus on implementing decisions and (North Water recommendations collectively made mutually support- Polynya) and by Arctic states including the Arctic ive implementation involving Inuit in Marine Strategic Plan, in an effective management of and collaborative way. This requires mechanisms are ur- the marine envi- new approaches to Arctic marine gently needed to ronment. Betsy cooperation. Baker focuses on Dr. ALEXANDER SHESTAKOV At time of publication, the Arctic secure a sustainable ecosystem-based is Director of the Council’s Task Force on Arctic Marine management as WWF Global arctic future for the Arctic Programme Cooperation is developing options for the basic guiding cooperation mechanisms for the Arc- marine environment principle for any tic marine environment. Arctic states management system in the Arctic. and Permanent Participants will elaborate on a number She underscores Indigenous participation and knowledge of questions to be answered before proposing a working are key to such management. instrument. Those questions include identification and We also present WWF’s proposal for Arctic marine acquisition of knowledge inputs; coordination of steward- cooperation within the structure and current mandate ship efforts at various scales; area-based management of the Arctic Council. The options respond to many Task measures; relations with other international marine instru- Force questions. They also support an opportunity for ments (and lessons learned from their operations and expe- open discussion about the future of the Arctic Council rience); scope (legal and geographical) of the instrument; and potential improvements in its current structure and organizing principles within the structure of the Arctic efficiency as related to implementation of the Council’s Council and how that structure may need to be changed. recommendations. With the change in the Arctic Ocean Authors in this issue provide context and insight on over the past two decades, coordinated and mutually sup- some of those questions to help inform discussions at the portive implementation mechanisms are urgently needed Task Force on Arctic Marine Cooperation. Paul Berkman to secure a sustainable future for the Arctic marine envi- and Alexander Vylegzhanin explore questions of Arctic ronment. l

The Circle 2.2016 3

TheCircle0216.indd 3 27.05.2016 10.59 In brief

only treat the symptom, not global reduction in green- Polar bear the underlying problem, says house gas emissions, a move Canada preparing Gitte Seeberg, Secretary Gen- to 100 per cent renewable conflict at record eral of WWF-Denmark. “The energy by 2050, and for poli- claim to Arctic root cause is climate change cies that help Arctic commu- high in Greenland and we should do our utmost nities and wildlife cope with Continental shelf to slow it down.” the consequences of climate A year of record warm WWF is advocating for a disruption. Canada plans to submit its temperatures and lower than Arctic continental shelf claim normal sea ice has led to in 2018 and is expected to unprecedented numbers of include the North Pole. Cana- polar bears venturing into dian officials acknowledge Greenland’s communities. this will overlap with both A WWF-supported patrol in Russian and Danish submis- the community of Ittoqqor- sions that also claim owner- toormiit has encountered 20 ship of the planet’s northern- polar bears in town in the most point. past three months. That’s Under the United Nations twice the number of conflicts Convention on the Law of recorded throughout Green- the Sea (UNCLOS), which land in 2012. Canada ratified in 2003, all Polar bears prefer to coastal states have a conti- spend their time on the sea nental shelf extending 200 ice, where they can hunt for nautical miles (370 km) from seals. Longer ice-free seasons coastal baselines. They can force them onto land and also extend their claim by into communities to search Exploring Last Ice Area online 150 nautical miles (278 km) for food. The polar bear beyond 200 nautical miles if patrol does daily surveillance Lancaster Sound, a For more than 30 the shelf is a natural prolon- during peak periods and region in Canada’s high years, communities have gation of their landmass. chases bears away so they Arctic at the southern been working to protect However, there are cir- aren’t shot in self-defense. edge of the Last Ice Area, the region from indus- cumstances where a coastal However, the number of is being brought closer to trial development. WWF state can claim even further polar bears shot to protect people around the world is asking the Canadian than 350 nautical miles, said life and property has also thanks to a new interac- government to formally Mary-Lynn Dickson, head of increased. 2014 was a record tive map (http://lancas- announce protection for Canada’s UNCLOS Program. year, with at least 12 bears tersound.wwf.ca). The the area and to update “In the case of submarine killed in Greenland because map contains exclusive its records to reflect oil elevations, if a coastal state they posed an imminent dan- footage, stories about the exploration leases in the can prove that submarine ger. WWF expects even more region and rich mapping region that should have elevation is part of its conti- polar bear encounters this features. expired in 1979. nental landmass, and if that summer. The area is slated for The Last Ice Area is the feature extended beyond 350 “We have had a winter protection as a National only Arctic region expect- nautical miles from their with extremely little sea ice Marine Conservation ed to retain its summer baselines, the coastal state and an early melt, and so Area, but it also has sea ice until 2050, mak- could delineate an outer limit we expect a new record this disputed oil exploration ing it a critically impor- past 350 nautical miles,” season,” says WWF biologist leases within the pro- tant zone for the future of Dickson said. Kaare Winther Hansen. posed boundary. ice-dependent life. And polar bear patrols can

4 The Circle 2.2016

TheCircle0216.indd 4 27.05.2016 10.59 In brief

Arctic ban on dirtiest shipping fuels Eliminating the use of countries including France, heavy fuel oil (HFO) in Norway, Sweden and Can- the Arctic inched closer to ada on the need for ongo- reality in May at a meeting study and analysis. ing of the International Russia was the only dis- Maritime Organization senting voice, observing (IMO) in London. The that lighter fuels such as shipping industry’s global diesel are also highly toxic regulator, the IMO heard when spilled and have a presentations from WWF tendency to remain in the and other environmental water column and cause organizations about the harm. This underscored hazards, risks and impacts the importance of switch- of this toxic fuel. An official ing from diesel and HFO to submission to the Marine cleaner fuels such as lique- Environment Protec- fied natural gas (LNG), tion Committee received which have minimal emis- positive interventions from sion and spill impacts. Photo: Andrew Priest – Creative Commons Photo:

future oil and gas lease sales. signatories of a letter sent to clean-energy future,” the let- U.S. lawmakers The areas in question are the Secretary Sally Jewell argue ter stated. The group wants Chukchi and Beaufort seas, that by banning drilling in the U.S. to adopt a tougher seek end to which have been approved the Chukchi and Beaufort, stand on fossil fuels, and for for drilling by the Obama the U.S. would be positively them, Alaska is ground zero Arctic Drilling administration. The Chukchi contributing to the climate for this. “Scientific consensus Sea is believed to hold 15 bil- change goals of the Paris tells us that the vast majority A group of lawmakers is try- lion barrels of recoverable oil Agreement. of known fossil fuel reserves ing to maintain momentum and 78 trillion cubic feet of “Ending oil and gas devel- must be left undeveloped against Arctic oil drilling by recoverable natural gas. It’s opment in the Arctic would if we are to avoid the worst calling on the Secretary of the estimated the Beaufort Sea send a powerful international effects of climate change,” U.S. Department of Interior could hold 8 billion barrels signal that the United States the letter stated. to exclude two sectors of the of oil and nearly 28 trillion is committed to investing its Alaskan Arctic Ocean from cubic feet of natural gas. The resources in a climate safe,

The Circle 2.2016 5

TheCircle0216.indd 5 27.05.2016 10.59 Pikialasorsuaq (The North Water Polynya)

Baffin Bay. June 13, 2001. Pikialasorsuaq CANADA North Water Polynya KALAALLIT NUNAAT Greenland

le Circ Arctic Nares Strait Canada

Kalaallit Smith Sound Nunaat Greenland

Qaanaaq Pikialasorsuaq Ellesmere Island North Water Polynya

Aujuittoq (Grise Fiord)

Devon Island Avannaata Imaa Baffin Bay A S A

Ippiarjuk (Arctic Bay) DIS Land Rapid Response Team, N Team, DIS Land Rapid Response O Mittimatalik (Pond Inlet)

Baffin Island 6 The Circle 2.2016 Photo: Jacques Descloitres, M

TheCircle0216.indd 6 27.05.2016 10.59 Community consultations on “The Great Upwelling” Rapid changes in climate, environment and sea ice conditions combined with a heightened interest from the environmental, scientific and business communities has ignited the Inuit’s drive to establish a framework for managing the Pikialasorsuaq area. Kuupik Vandersee Kleist shares his perspective as a member of The Pikialasorsuaq Commission.

The North Water Polynya is called dif- “We are extremely pleased ermen from Mittimatalik/Pond Inlet, ferent names in different areas populat- Aujuittoq/Grise Fiord and Ippiarjuk/ ed by Inuit, only serving to illustrate its with the community inter- Arctic Bay in Nunavut, and Kullorsuaq cultural importance through millennia. and Qaanaaq in Greenland, as well as In Greenland, it is called “Pikialasor- est and that so many people researchers from both countries. One suaq” or “The Great Upwelling”. of the essential findings at the seminar A polynya is an area of open water attended the hearings in both was that the ice bridge situated north of surrounded by sea ice. Pikialasorsuaq communities and were willing Pikialasorsuaq played a very important is the largest polynya in the Northern role in the regular contact between Inuit Hemisphere and the most biologi- to share their knowledge and from Greenland and Northern Canada. cally productive ecosystem north of the The workshop concluded with a Arctic Circle. It lies in northern Baffin perspectives with us. We are strong consensus to explore joint strate- Bay between Greenland and Canada’s gies for safe- Ellesmere Island near Smith Sound and humbled by the warmth and guarding and Kuupik Nares Strait. It is an important marine monitoring generosity we received.” Vandersee area for Inuit and the species upon the health of Commissioner Eva Aariak Kleist is a which high Arctic communities rely. this region for member of The This is also an area vulnerable to cli- future genera- Pikialasorsuaq mate change. Inuit in the region have driven management options in advance tions. Commission expressed a desire to explore locally- of increased shipping, tourism, fishing, There was and non-renewable resource explora- also agreement tion/development. The Pikialasorsuaq to establish a commission “to consult The Inuit-led Pikialasorsuaq Com- Commission’s mandate will be to lis- with communities and communicate mission is led by three Commission- ten to Inuit community members and possibilities for future use and conser- ers: ICC Chair, Okalik Eegeesiak knowledge holders who use and depend vation of the area”. is the International Commissioner; on this region for their vision of the The Pikialasorsuaq Commission held former Nunavut Premier, Eva Aariak North Water’s future use and coopera- initial community hearings in Aujuittoq is the Canadian Commissioner; tion. (Grise Fiord) and Mittimatalik (Pond former Greenland Premier, Kuupik In 2013 the Inuit Circumpolar Inlet), Nunavut. The hearings spanned 5 Vandersee Kleist is the Greenland Council arranged a workshop on Piki- days in the two communities with addi- Commissioner. alasorsuaq. “Bridging the Bay” in Nuuk, tional participation from community Greenland included hunters and fish- members from Kangirtturaapik (Clyde

The Circle 2.2016 7 DIS Land Rapid Response Team, N A S Team, Photo: Jacques Descloitres, M O DIS Land Rapid Response

TheCircle0216.indd 7 27.05.2016 10.59 River), Ippiarjuk (Arctic Bay) and Qaus- in migration patterns; shipping; oil and suitturq (Resolute Bay). “Many community members gas exploration; hunting; commercial The overall purpose of the consulta- appreciated the timing of the fishing and any other foreseeable activ- tions is to describe and document the ity. importance of the area for Inuit and hearings, as outside interest It will also look at the judicial and other residents in communities and legal frameworks currently regulating areas adjacent to Pikialasorsuaq and and use of the Pikialasorsuaq the area. Both Nunavut and Greenland how the riches of Pikialasorsuaq are have interests in the area. But Canada being exploited. The Pikialasorsuaq (North Water Polynya) has in- and Denmark – as sovereign states Commission is interested in all kinds of creased significantly. Inuit are – also have regulatory powers and information on how the area is used and geopolitical interests which have to be how to strike a balance between human also observing many changes addressed by the Commission. interests and protecting Pikialasorsuaq The priority of the Commission is to to secure and protect it for future gen- with the animals and the en- build its report and formulate its recom- erations. mendations based on the outcomes of The Commission will address a broad vironment and are concerned the community consultations. This will range of factors which could potentially about the future security include hearing from the communi- influence the nature of Pikialasorsuaq. ties adjacent to Pikialasorsuaq before These include: scientific biological anal- of their food sources.” attempting to develop any specific mod- ysis; changes in ice conditions; changes Commissioner Okalik Eegeesiak el for potential future management. The

Inuit kayaker on the still blue waters of Eclipse Sound, Baffin Island, Nunavut, Canada

8 The Circle 2.2016

TheCircle0216.indd 8 27.05.2016 10.59 Rrely seen adult male rib- ultimate goal must be to place decisions bon seal. Russia, Ozernoy in the hands of the people actually living Gulf. June, 2005. in the area. The Commission heads to Greenland in August for the next phase of hearings in communities connected with Pikialasorsuaq. Following these hearings, the Commission will bring its findings and recommendations back to the involved communities before a final report is released to the public and to decision makers in the fall of 2016. But community members have expressed a clear desire to work together and be

fully involved in management decisions – Creative Commons Photo: Michael Cameron, NOAA/NMFS/AKFSC/NMML with their Greenlandic neighbours. We are one people with a shared history. Pikialasorsuaq is our common herit- age and we will work together for our The regional seas shared future. l agreements: lessons learned As the Arctic Council Task Force on Arctic Marine Coop- eration ponders possible ways to increase cooperation around the Arctic Ocean, some states have already suc- cessfully negotiated cooperation agreements. Several have turned to “Regional Seas” agreements, using a framework developed by the United Nations Environment Pro- gramme. Kanako Hasegawa has compiled information on the regional sea agreements, and some lessons learned.

What is the UNEP Regional Environment Assembly, UNEP admin- Seas Programme? isters seven Regional Seas programmes. The UNEP Regional Seas Programme Within the was established in 1974 as one of framework Ms. Kanako UNEP’s flagship programmes. This pro- of the UNEP Hasegawa is gramme aims to address degradation Regional Seas the Associate of oceans and seas at the regional level Programme, Programme through cooperation of neighbouring all the eighteen Officer at UNEP countries. Currently there are 18 Region- Regional Seas Regional Seas Coordina- al Seas programmes across the world, programmes tion, Japan. of which 14 of them were established are invited under the auspices of UNEP (Table 1). to the annual Global Meetings of the Based on decisions by the UNEP Gov- Regional Seas Conventions and Action erning Council and the United Nations Plans organised by UNEP in order to

The Circle 2.2016 9 Photo: Peter Ewins / WWF-Canada

TheCircle0216.indd 9 27.05.2016 10.59 Atlantic Puffin (Fratercula arctica) in flight on Grimsey, Iceland Photo: Michael Ransburg – Creative Commons

share experiences and information with ported by legally binding Conventions. tilateral agreements at the regional level. the other Regional Seas programmes. It means that in most cases the Regional Thus the participating countries are the Establishment of a Regional Seas pro- Seas programmes have both Convention driving forces for the programmes. The gramme typically started with the devel- and Action Plan. With time, many of the programmes have respective decision opment of an Action Plan. It is not a programmes developed protocols on making bodies. Conferences of Parties legally binding document but it clarifies specific issues under their Conventions (COPs) or Commissions for Conventions regional priorities and areas for coop- such as for specially protected areas, and Intergovernmental Meetings (IGMs) eration and actions for the conservation marine pollution emergencies and pol- for Action Plans serve as the decision of the common body of water shared by lution from land based sources. making body. Through these mecha- the neighbouring countries. nisms the participating countries make In most of the Regional Seas pro- Who is involved? decisions on a Programme of Work grammes, their Action Plans are sup- The Regional Seas programmes are mul- (PoW) and budgets among others. In

Table 1 The Regional Seas programmes established under the auspices of UNEP and those independent of UNEP

The UNEP Regional Seas Programme (18 Regional Seas programmes)

14 Regional Seas programmes established under the auspices of UNEP 4 Regional Seas programmes established independent of UNEP

Abidjan Convention (Western Africa Region) Kuwait Convention (ROPME Sea Area) CAMLR Convention (Antarctic) Antigua Convention (North East Pacific)1 CPPS2 and Lima Convention (South East Pacific) Helsinki Convention (Baltic Sea) Barcelona Convention (Mediterranean) Nairobi Convention (East Africa region) OSPAR Convention (Northeast Atlantic) Bucharest Convention (Black Sea) SPREP3 and Noumea Convention (Pacific region) Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (Arctic) Cartagena Convention (Caribbean) Northwest Pacific Action Plan (Northwest Pacific) East Asian Seas Action Plan (East Asian Seas) South Asian Seas Action Plan (South Asian Seas) Jeddah Convention (Red Sea) Teheran Convention (Caspian Sea)

10 The Circle 2.2016

TheCircle0216.indd 10 27.05.2016 10.59 Crossota sp., a deep red medusa found just off the bottom of the deep sea. The NOAA Hidden Ocean expedition, Arctic. July 25, 2005. Photo: Michael Ransburg – Creative Commons Photo: Kevin Raskoff, California State University, Monterey Bay – Creative Commons California State University, Photo: Kevin Raskoff,

most cases, a Trust Fund is established UNEP also plays a coordination to the functioning of the secretariats. for the operation of a Regional Seas pro- role for the UNEP Regional Seas Pro- Regional seas programmes each have gramme and the Fund is replenished by gramme. For example, UNEP together their intergovernmental decision mak- the respective participating countries. with the Regional Seas programmes ing processes independent from the With this fund, a secretariat is normally set Regional Seas Strategic Directions UNEP’s decision making body and their established to coordinate activities. For (RSSD) in order to connect regional PoWs are different from UNEP’s PoW, the implementation of their respective activities with global processes. Thus, reflecting social, cultural and environ- Action Plans and PoWs, the Regional the RSSD (2017-2020) aims to coordi- mental status of the regions. Seas programmes may work with nate activities with the 2030 Agenda external partners such as international for Sustainable Development and Paris Lessons learned organisations, other regional organisa- Agreement of UNFCCC among others. The UNEP Regional Seas Programme tions, multilateral environmental agree- One of the main activities UNEP cur- has worked to protect the oceans and ments, research institutions and Non- rently coordinates is the initiation of seas for more than 40 years. Over the Governmental Organisations (NGOs) as dialogues between the Regional Seas years the programmes have imple- appropriate. programmes and the Regional Fisher- mented various projects and activities ies Bodies in respective regions. As a to protect the health of oceans and UNEP’s role joint effort between UNEP and United seas. However, political and economic UNEP provided technical assistance to Nations Food and Agriculture Organiza- instabilities are the major challenges to the development of Action Plans for the tion, the activities aim to catalyse a shift many of the Regional Seas programmes. 14 Regional Seas programmes. UNEP toward a more integrated management Without sufficient funds it would be continues to provide technical support of the marine and coastal ecosystems difficult to implement the Action Plan. on thematic issues upon requests by the based on the ecosystem approach. Therefore, political and financial com- Regional Seas programmes. For exam- In addition, UNEP hosts secretariats mitments by the participating countries ple, training can be jointly organised by of the seven Regional Seas programmes. are the key for a successful operation of a Regional Seas programme and UNEP However, the funds are derived from a Regional Seas programme regardless on thematic issues such as ecosystem respective Trust Funds. Thus, UNEP of the region. l based management. does not provide any financial support

The Circle 2.2016 11

TheCircle0216.indd 11 27.05.2016 10.59 Building common interests Research and investment into sustainable development across the Arctic Ocean are urgently needed. Some investment initiatives have already emerged: The Arctic Busi- ness Council appeared in 2012, then the Arctic Economic Council in 2015, and the Arctic Investment Protocol in 2016. Paul Berkman and Alexander Vylegzhanin say the emerging challenge now is to find options that contribute to informed decision-making on sustainability in the Arctic Ocean.

With diminishing sea-ice boundary and For consideration by all stakeholders, floor up to the North Pole as their con- summer open water across more than the Arctic high seas offer humankind tinental shelf under Article 83 of UNC- half of its area, there are immediate such a path because this marine region LOS, there still will be overlying waters opportunities and risks associated with is unambiguously beyond sovereign of the high seas in the Central Arctic the environmental change in the Arctic jurisdictions. Freedom of the high seas Ocean. Importantly, the Arctic high Ocean. We now have a new ocean north became international law in 1958 with seas do not conflict with “sovereignty, of the Arctic Circle. Issues, impacts the Convention on the High Seas, estab- sovereign rights and jurisdictions” of and resources lishing that the high seas are “open to the Arctic coastal states relating to their Paul Berkman are crossing all nations” and “no State may validly continental shelf and EEZ. Significant is an internation- and extending purport to subject any part of them to for humanity, the water column in the ally-renowned beyond national its sovereignty.” Arctic Ocean surrounding the North scientist, explor- jurisdictions in Under the 1982 United Nations Con- Pole beyond EEZ – defined as the Arctic er, educator and ways that were vention on the Law of the Sea (UNC- high seas with an area over 2.8 million author. He teaches at the premature to LOS), all states have rights and respon- square-kilometers – is unique to build Fletcher School of Law at address even a sibilities in the high seas, explicitly the common interests in the Arctic. Tufts University U.S.A decade ago. water column beyond the 200-mile With stewardship, in 2015 the five In terms of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of Arctic coastal states adopted their Dec- Alexander sustainable the coastal states. In this international laration Concerning the Prevention of N. Vylegzha- development, space, Indigenous peoples – with their Unregulated High Seas Fishing in the nin heads the how can we unique relationship to nation states Central Arctic Ocean: International provide wise through the Arctic Council – also have ■■ Recognizing that until recently ice has Law Program at stewardship rights and responsibilities as residents generally covered the high seas portion Moscow State in the Arctic, of the Arctic for millenia. of the central Arctic Ocean on a year- Institute of International while recogniz- Both the Northern Sea Route (along Relations. His major inter- ing the chal- the coasts of Russia) and the Northwest est is General International lenge to balance Passage (along the coasts of Canada and harmony is neces- Law, International Law of environmental Alaska) are within EEZ and not within the Sea, Legal Regime of protection, eco- the Arctic high seas. Environmental sary to ensure Natural Resources. nomic prosper- laws and regulations of the Arctic coast- ity and societal al states under Article 234 of UNCLOS that the Arctic re- well-being for the benefit of present and (“Ice-Covered Areas”) also are applica- mains a region of future generations? ble only within EEZ, but not in the Arc- Fundamental for sustainability in the tic high seas. low tension, which Arctic Ocean is legal and political stabil- Moreover, the high seas in the Arctic ity, promoting environmental and eco- Ocean will continue to exist, independ- is the precursor nomic cooperation, and preventing inter- ent of any decisions made about Arctic national conflicts in the region. Opera- continental shelves by the surround- for sustainable tionally, such stability involves balancing ing states (Canada, Denmark, Norway, development of national and common interests. But the Russian Federation and United States). first step is to build common interests. Even if these nations delimit all the sea the high north.

12 The Circle 2.2016

TheCircle0216.indd 12 27.05.2016 10.59 The Arctic high seas is the heart of the Arctic Ocean, pulsing poleward with national interests from the surrounding coastal states and landward with common interests from our global society. Progress to balance national interests and common interests in the Arctic Ocean will resonate with precedents and lessons for humanity on a planetary scale. Adapted from Berkman, P.A. and Young, O.R. 2009. Governance and Environmental Change in the Arctic Ocean. Science 324:339-340.

round basis, which has made fishing in Environment of the North-East Atlantic ests, promoting cooperation and pre- those waters impossible to conduct. to consider potential “Ecologically or venting conflict. Such harmony is neces- ■■ Recalling the obligations of States Biologically Significant Marine Areas” sary to ensure that the Arctic remains under international law to cooperate in the Arctic high seas. Also in March a region of low tension, which is the with each other in the conservation and 2014, the European Parliament intro- precursor for sustainable development management of living marine resources duced a joint motion for a resolution of the high north. in high seas areas, including the obli- that would include area protection as Looking at the Arctic and Earth with gation to apply the precautionary well as precautionary measures in the a sense of shared responsibility – we approach... Arctic high seas. are in our infancy to resolve issues with This Declaration along with the The Arctic High Seas is the heart of planetary implications. Nearly 30% Chairman’s Statements (in Nuuk from the Arctic (see Figure). In effect, the sea of our planet’s surface falls within the February 2014 and in Washington in floor represents the coastal states look- boundaries of nations, reflecting diverse December 2015) open the door for the ing seaward toward the North Pole from national interests. The other 70% of the international community to collectively the perspective of their national inter- Earth’s surface exists in areas beyond address fisheries, as well as shipping, ests. Conversely, the Arctic high seas national jurisdictions, in international research and other issues of common involves the entire international com- spaces that humankind has established concern in this international space. munity with rights and duties – in an in terms of common interests. Building Other international forums are also inclusive manner – looking coastward common interests in the Arctic high seas addressing the Arctic high seas, includ- from the North Pole in view of their – a special area that is unambiguously ing the Convention on Biological Diver- common interests. beyond national jurisdictions – holds sity, which convened a workshop in This juxtaposition of perspectives in lessons as well as answers to achieve March 2014 with the Northeast Atlantic the Arctic Ocean reflects the challenge balance, harmony and sustainability for Fisheries Commission and the Conven- that we face as a civilization to balance the benefit of all on Earth. l tion for the Protection of the Marine national interests and common inter-

The Circle 2.2016 13

TheCircle0216.indd 13 27.05.2016 10.59 The conundrum: conserving biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction So much of human outlook on life is from a land-based perspective. On land, we have developed rules for every- thing built up over millennia of learning how to get along with our neighbours. At sea, we only have a few centuries of experience in developing rules which, Alistair Graham observes, seem to be more about maintaining traditional freedoms than being mindful of others’ interests.

Conservationists need to appreci- but still owes much to the seminal work ate two big picture realities regarding of Dutch lawyer, Hugo Grotius, ‘Mare Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdic- Liberum’ – where he expounds the tion (BBNJ): one, it takes a long time principle of ‘free seas’ or ’unrestricted to change the rules of the maritime access.’ That was published in 1609 game and the current rules purposefully proving maritime norms really do favour freedoms and two, maintaining evolve very slowly. unimpeded maritime trade is over- These freedoms are maintained by whelmingly mutual respect for flag state responsibil- Alistair important. ity. UNCLOS gives every state the right Graham is States are jeal- to operate a vessel registry and to allow an adviser for ously protective registered vessels to fly its flag. Flagged WWF Inter- of their sov- vessels are deemed to be nationals of national on ereignty – the that state in the same way that people oceans governance reform right to do what become nationals when registered as they like within citizens and businesses become nation- their own territory and jurisdiction con- als when registered as companies. sions of those agreements. But everyone strained only by their own laws. This is how activities in Areas Beyond understands that conflict will ensue if The centuries of maritime rules devel- National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) are con- anyone tries usurping flag state respon- opment are manifest in UNCLOS – the trolled – by extending state jurisdiction sibility by taking matters into their own United Nations Convention on the Law over its nationals to vessels even when hands and, uninvited, exercising control of the Sea – often referred to as the beyond national jurisdiction. States are of others’ nationals. That’s why ‘piracy’ constitution for the oceans to empha- then responsible to each other by virtue has such a bad ring to it. The merchant sise its importance and reluctance to of having signed on to UNCLOS and shipping industry has long dealt with change it. UNCLOS is the third iteration other international agreements to abide this reality by adopting port state con- of the law of the sea in recent decades by the obligations set out in the provi- trols. Because ports are within national

14 The Circle 2.2016

TheCircle0216.indd 14 27.05.2016 10.59 An MH-60 Jayhawk helicopter from U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak flying over the fishing vessel Bering Star Oct. 20, 2008, in the Bering Sea during the red king crab season. ir Station Kodiak. Wikimedia Commons. A MT3 Blaize Potts, USCG A Photo:

jurisdiction, states can force operators under UNCLOS on the conservation menting agreement is a good vehicle for of vessels to behave by making access to and sustainable use of living things in our conservation ambitions. their ports conditional upon their doing these international seas. We just need Cooperation between states in ABNJ so. to be smart about knowing when, where habitually takes the form of setting up These are the ‘big picture’ notions we and how to push. Now is a good time sectoral bodies which then make deci- have to keep in mind as we contemplate because of the United Nations Confer- sions, generally by consensus, for the conservation issues in the vast marine ence on Environment and Development. orderly development of that sector. The areas beyond national jurisdiction. We The United Nations is a good place for International Whaling commission was now have an opportunity to influence these negotiations because ABNJ is a set up to do this in 1946 although, not negotiation of a new binding agreement global issue and an UNCLOS imple- foreseeing conflict to come, the whalers

The Circle 2.2016 15

TheCircle0216.indd 15 27.05.2016 10.59 set up an open access body that decided object to being expected to legitimise by simple voting – something they bit- conflict will ensue if a restricted membership body that terly regretted in later years. The mer- gives members privileged access to chant shippers were far more prudent anyone tries usurping fish resources in ABNJ in breach of the in establishing IMO, the International flag state respon- UNCLOS freedom to fish provisions. Maritime Organisation, in 1948 with As ice recedes, controlling activities voting power of member states linked sibility by taking in the Arctic is becoming more of an to the size of the fleets flying their flags issue. The most immediate ABNJ issue and a tradition of consensus decision- matters into their to deal with is merchant shipping. Most making. The miners ensured that there of the Arctic is ABNJ for merchant ship- was a whole part of UNCLOS that cre- own hands...that’s ping because the limit of states’ national ated the International Seabed Authority, why ‘piracy’ has such jurisdiction is the limit of territorial to actually regulate mining in ABNJ and waters, only 12 nautical miles from the to ensure that exclusive mineral rights a bad ring to it coast. Receding ice means that major could be issued. all-year-round shipping routes will Meanwhile, fishing interests had been open up within decades, significantly negotiating international agreements as cutting transit times between major des- and when regional circumstances war- Fisheries Management Organisations tinations. Arctic states need to decide ranted it, starting with the US/Canada (RFMOs). To fix this legitimacy prob- whether they’re prepared to see these Halibut Commission in 1923. These lem, fishing interests negotiated an routes controlled vicariously by controls were typically limited-membership, UNCLOS implementing agreement – exercised by non-Arctic port authorities regional arrangements among states the UN Fish Stocks Agreement which at either end of these shipping routes or with a ‘real interest’ i.e., commercial was adopted in 1995 and entered into whether they want a special agreement fishing of particular fish stocks in a force in 2001. This agreement explicitly that has them more in control. Mean- region, generally making decisions by legitimises RFMOs but needs wide- while, oil and gas exploitation will be consensus as much as possible. spread, if not universal ratification an Exclusive Economic Zone issue for a UNCLOS, however, gives all states before legitimacy is effectively achieved. long while yet. the equal ‘freedom to fish’ in ABNJ thus This is proving hard to achieve as some Fisheries, however, warrant some challenging the legitimacy of limited, countries, especially Latin American immediate attention and, in July last ‘real interest’ membership Regional countries and Argentina in particular, year, Arctic coastal states signed a Declaration wherein they voluntarily agree not to fish in the high Arctic ABNJ These three Articles of the Convention on Biological Diversity summarise obli- other than in compliance with RFMO gations in ABNJ measures. To be useful, however, that Declaration will need to be converted Article 3. Principle States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations into a binding agreement that any state and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resourc- can sign up to so that no state’s vessels, es pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that or other nationals, go fishing in the Arc- activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of tic unless and until appropriate RFMO other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. management arrangements are in place. Article 4. Jurisdictional Scope: Subject to the rights of other States, and except as In effect, there is a moratorium in place otherwise expressly provided in this Convention, the provisions of this Convention but all states with an interest in high apply, in relation to each Contracting Party: (a) In the case of components of biologi- Arctic ABNJ fishing will need to join cal diversity, in areas within the limits of its national jurisdiction; and (b) In the case of that binding agreement if the intended processes and activities, regardless of where their effects occur, carried out under its restraint is to be effective. jurisdiction or control, within the area of its national jurisdiction or beyond the limits of The important point here is that those national jurisdiction. wanting effective control of activities in Arctic ABNJ don’t need to wait for any Article 5. Cooperation: Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as international agreement to legitimise appropriate, cooperate with other Contracting Parties, directly or, where appropriate, their efforts. They just need to ensure through competent international organizations, in respect of areas beyond national that any regional agreements they nego- jurisdiction and on other matters of mutual interest, for the conservation and sustain- tiate are open to participation by all able use of biological diversity. states and then use diplomatic efforts to ensure that all relevant states sign up. l

16 The Circle 2.2016

TheCircle0216.indd 16 27.05.2016 10.59 10 Alutian Islands LME 0 750 1500 km The Large Marine 11 West Bering Sea LME Ecosystems (LMEs) endorsed 9 East Bering Sea LME by the Arctic Council. ALASKA (USA)

12 Chukchi Sea LME

14 Beaufort Sea LME 8 East Siberian Sea LME

CANADA

7 Laptev Sea LME

13 Central Arctic LME 17 Hudson Bay LME RUSSIA

6 Kara Sea LME 16 Bafﬁn Bay LME

A R C T IC C I RC GREENLAND LE 18 Labrador Sea LME 5 Barents Sea LME 3 Greenland Sea LME

2 Iceland Shelf and Sea LME 4 Norwegain Sea LME NORWAY FINLAND 1 Fareo Plateau LME Map: Ketill Berger, Film & Form. Source: Natural Earth. Large Marine Ecosystem (LMEs) of the Arctic area – Revison of the Arctic LME Map, May 15 2013, www.pame.is SWEDEN Ecosystem based management: a flexible tool for stewardship Betsy Baker Council confirmed ecosystem-based [EBM is] the comprehensive management (EBM) as the “corner- integrated management of overnments, stakeholders, and stone” of its work. EBM is a science- human activities based on best rights-holders in the Arctic and based approach that takes into account available scientific knowledge globally are recognizing the limits interactions between a range of eco- about the ecosystem and its of managing individual species or system components and which can be dynamics, in order to identify geographic sectors and the need adapted for the regions and ecosystems and take action on influences Gto manage marine areas from an ecosys- involved. While no one definition exists, which are critical to the health tem perspective. In the Arctic Marine an Arctic Council Expert Group on EBM of ecosystems thereby achiev- Strategic Plan for 2015-2025 the Arctic endorsed the following: ing sustainable use of ecosystem

The Circle 2.2016 17

TheCircle0216.indd 17 27.05.2016 10.59 goods and services and mainte- builds on existing structures and allows nance of ecosystem integrity. humans and their experts in both Russia and Norway to activities are an in- contribute to designing the monitoring The Strategic Plan also recognizes system. Ocean-3 complements existing humans and their activities are an inte- tegral part of the Norwegian EBM work in the Barents. gral part of the ecosystem as a whole, Norway was one of the first of the states something Indigenous Peoples of the ecosystem … some- globally to institute integrated EBM Arctic have understood for generations. plans for all of its marine areas, Arctic The 2015 Inuit Circumpolar Council thing Indigenous and non-Arctic. Technical Report on Food Security is Peoples of the Arc- Canada’s Beaufort Sea Large Ocean the most recent articulation of the ages- Management Area is another example old appreciation of holistic connections tic have understood of national and trans-boundary projects between humans and ecosystems. Rath- in the Arctic and beyond that can be er than defining EBM, the ICC Report for generations. instructive for EBM. This offers a case includes the ecosystem in its definition study of widely participatory EBM that of food security: for EBM are largely national efforts. builds on the existing land claims agree- EBM has significant potential to con- ment and other regional governance Alaskan Inuit food security is nect managers in neighboring Arctic structures. the natural right of all Inuit to be coastal states: it can provide a platform In order to benefit from Arctic and part of the ecosystem, to access for exchanging technical expertise non-Arctic case studies alike, Arctic food and to care-take, protect and tailoring marine management to marine managers must consider in- and respect all of life, land, water national and trans-boundary ecosystems depth analyses of projects from other and air. with shared characteristics. Supporting parts of the world, as exemplified in national marine managers’ networks can studies such as the Marine Ecosystem The Arctic marine area encompasses also strengthen cooperation in managing Based Management in Practice Data- multiple ecosystems in the Arctic areas beyond national jurisdiction, such base (http://webservices.itcs.umich. Ocean and its as the Central Arctic Ocean LME. edu/drupal/mebm/?q=node/68). adjacent seas. While EBM is largely nascent in the Among the most important lessons to Betsy Baker The eighteen marine Arctic, several coastal states are be learned from the database are why a specializes in Marine Ecosys- developing national or trans-boundary particular EBM project was launched, international tems (LMEs) marine EBM projects. Even though not how it is governed, what it accom- environmental endorsed by the yet fully implemented, these projects plishes, what factors facilitate its suc- law, ocean poli- Arctic Council can be fruitfully shared with other Arc- cess, what challenges it faces, and what cy & the Law of the Sea. in 2013 (see tic states. The Joint Norwegian-Russian enables both collaboration and conflict map) inter- Commission on Environmental Protec- management. Among the clearest mes- sect with these and other areas such as tion has operated since the 1990s and sages from surveying successful EBM the Faroe Plateau, the Icelandic Shelf produces regular bilateral environmen- projects around the world are that EBM and Sea, and the Aleutian Islands. The tal status updates for the Barents Sea. is inherently science-based and partici- Arctic Council’s strong endorsement of The Commission is currently engaged in patory, even as it retains clear lines of EBM has led its Task Force on Arctic the Ocean-3 project to establish a base managerial authority to the states with Marine Cooperation to consider EBM for joint Norwegian-Russian monitoring jurisdiction over the resource in ques- as a component of potential cooperative of the Barents Sea ecosystem. Ocean-3 tion. Participation, science, Indigenous mechanisms between the Arctic States. supports two other phases of the Com- knowledge, and flexible governance Why introduce each of these seas and mission’s work, developing an EBM mechanisms that build on existing state their component ecosystems in connec- plan for the Russian side of the Barents and regional structures will be the key tion with their coastal landmasses and Sea, and the Commission’s portal for to EBM and to better stewardship of the countries? Because, in the end, both the the Barents Sea environmental status Arctic Ocean in these times of rapid and science and the management structures updates. The Ocean-3 project thus unpredictable change. l

18 The Circle 2.2016

TheCircle0216.indd 18 27.05.2016 10.59 The evolution of the Arctic Council and the Arctic Council System International interest in the Arctic increased spectacularly between 2004-2008. This was due to a number of events including the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, the dra- matic Arctic sea-ice loss in 2007 and Russia planting its flag on the geographical North Pole’s deep sea-bed that same year. As Erik Molenaar writes, the flag planting triggered a broad range of reactions.

Soon after Russian explorer Artur tions, other instruments adopted by the extent of substantive and institutional Chilingarov plunked a Russian flag on Arctic Council and the Council’s institu- integration. This relates in particular the sea floor, there was a wide-spread, tional structure. The second component to the role of the Council’s Emergency incorrect perception that the flag- consists of treaties negotiated under Prevention, Preparedness and Response planting heralded the last land-grab the Council’s auspices and their insti- (EPPR) Work- on earth and an unchecked resource tutional components. Two such treaties ing Group Erik J. Mole- bonanza, due to an international law have been adopted to date: the 2011 under the Arc- naar is Deputy vacuum. This was followed by the incor- Arctic Search and Rescue (SAR) Agree- tic SAR and Director, Neth- rect assumption that this vacuum had ment and the 2013 Arctic Marine Oil MOPPR Agree- erlands Institute to be filled by a treaty modelled on the Pollution Preparedness and Response ments. for the Law of Antarctic Treaty. (MOPPR) Agreement. Both treaties pro- In 2014 the Sea, Utrecht University However, the Arctic Ocean coastal vide for Meetings of the Parties (MoPs), and 2015, the & Professor, K.G. Jebsen states – Canada, Denmark/Greenland, although none have been convened so Arctic’s institu- Centre for the Law of the Norway, the Russian Federation, and far. MoPs can also be convened under tional complex- Sea, UiT The Arctic Uni- the United States – pointed out that “an a third treaty, the Arctic Scientific ity increased versity of Norway. extensive international legal framework Cooperation Agreement, which is to be further with applies to the Arctic Ocean”, namely the signed at the 2017 Arctic Council Minis- the establish- law of the sea as per their famous 2008 terial Meeting. ment of three new bodies: the Arctic Ilulissat Declaration. While they did not The linkage between the Council and Economic Council, the Arctic Offshore question the usefulness of new issue- or this second component is not confined Regulators Forum and the Arctic Coast sector-specific regulation, they saw “no to the instruments’ mere negotiation Guard Forum. While none of these were need to develop a new comprehensive under the Council’s auspices, but also formally established by the Council or international legal regime to govern the comprises a considerable and increasing pursuant to a treaty negotiated under its Arctic Ocean.” auspices, all three have different extents Rather than a comprehensive reform of integration – substantively as well as or overhaul, the Arctic Council has pur- A key concern of procedurally – with the Arctic Council sued a two-tiered approach of adapta- and the broader ACS. Rather than form- tion in this new climate of heightened the Permanent Par- ing part of the Council or the broader interest and climate change. The first ticipants is the risk ACS, however, they could be regarded tier consists of strengthening the Coun- as belonging to a new, more peripheral cil with the establishment of the Arctic of losing the very category of Arctic cooperative mecha- Council Secretariat in 2014. nisms. At any rate, the establishment The second tier involves establishing influential partici- of these new bodies requires increased and expanding the concept of the Arctic efforts on institutional coordination and Council System (ACS) which has two patory status they cooperation. basic components: the Council’s con- currently have in Despite these developments, the stitutive instrument (the 1996 Ottawa question remains whether the current Declaration), other Ministerial Declara- the Arctic Council. institutional set-up of the Council will

The Circle 2.2016 19

TheCircle0216.indd 19 27.05.2016 10.59 be sufficient to address future chal- Some Members also remained uncon- Maritime jurisdiction and boundaries in the Arctic region lenges and ambitions. While support vinced about the need for any new body

for re-establishing the Council pursuant at all. This seems motivated at least to 180° E / W

)

Internal waters 3 3

to a treaty has in the recent past also some extent by current budgetary con- 6 (

been expressed by Arctic Council par- straints and concerns relating to institu- t

c U

Canada territorial sea and S tional proliferation. Some may also feel A ticipants – namely by Finland and the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) Conference & Standing Committee of the need to proceed cautiously to ensure Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region coherence between their interests and Potential Canada continental shelf – the required consensus among the positions in the TFAMC process and the beyond 200 M (see note 1) 135°E 135°W Arctic Council Members to commence recently commenced negotiations on Denmark territorial such negotiations is not even remotely a possible new UNCLOS Implementa- sea and EEZ in sight. A key concern of the Perma- tion Agreement on biodiversity in areas

nent Participants is the risk of losing the beyond national jurisdiction. Russia Denmark claimed continental shelf A

beyond 200 M (note 2)

C very influential participatory status they seemed to have more fundamental I

currently have in the Arctic Council. As concerns relating to any initiative that Iceland territorial sea and EEZ S

international law is inherently dynamic, could potentially lead to restrictions on A

however, nothing prevents the Arctic economic development in the ‘Russian e S

Iceland claimed continental shelf N g states from progressively developing Arctic’. beyond 200 M (note 2) d i international law by giving Arctic Indig- Finally, the Arctic Council’s substan- R

U enous peoples a similar participatory tive mandate is almost unlimited, but Norway territorial sea and EEZ / Fishery zone A v (Jan Mayen) / Fishery protection zone (Svalbard) o status under a treaty. significantly under-utilized. Yet, more s

o R The currently ongoing engagement of optimal use and associated institutional D n Norway claimed continental shelf o Arctic Council participants in the context change are constrained by existing beyond 200 M (note 3) m North 90°W 90°E of the Council’s Task Force on Arctic (sub-)regional or bilateral instru- A o Pole L Marine Cooperation (TFAMC) provides ments and bodies. In the context of the Russia territorial sea and EEZ the best opportunity to assess their appe- TFAMC, reference can be made to the tite for institutional change in the Arctic OSPAR Commission, whose geographi- Russia claimed continental shelf Council in the near future. The TFAMC cal competence extends all the way beyond 200 M (note 4) has a mandate to “assess future needs for to the geographical North Pole. Even a regional seas program or other mecha- if the Arctic states would prefer the Norway-Russia Special Area (note 5) nism, as appropriate, for increased coop- OSPAR Commission to relinquish part of its regulatory area, this is unlikely to eration in Arctic marine areas”. USA territorial sea and EEZ G At the time of writing, the TFAMC secure the necessary support among the r ( e D e had met once in 2015 and 2016 respec- OSPAR Commission’s Membership. In E n Potential USA continental shelf N l M a tively and is scheduled to meet in June many other scenarios, however, the Arc- beyond 200 M (note 1) A n R d K and September 2016 then again in 2017. tic states have no desire at all to replace ) While some common ground on over- or subsume existing (sub-)regional or Overlapping Canada / USA EEZ (note 6)

arching goals and principles has crystal- bilateral instruments and bodies, or to 45°W lized, the more fundamental agreement preclude new (sub-)regional or bilateral 45°E Russia-USA Eastern Special Area (note 7) RUSSIA on the core objective of the abovemen- instruments and bodies from being NORWAY tioned mechanism and its institutional created. Pertinent examples are instru- Unclaimed or unclaimable continental FINLAND dimension remains entirely absent. ments and bodies relating to the con- shelf (note 1) I One of the TFAMC’s key challenges servation and management of marine CEL SWEDEN AND is how to address the various interre- mammals and fish stocks, for instance Polar stereographic projection 0°E / W lated choices on key features of a future the currently ongoing Broader Process Straight baselines 350 M from baselines (note 1) 0 nautical miles 004 at 66°N mechanism. For instance its substantive on international regulation of high seas 0 kilometres 006 mandate, its geographical scope; wheth- fishing in the central Arctic Ocean. In Agreed boundary 100 M from 2500 m isobath Iceland-Norway joint zone (note 9) (beyond 350 M from baselines) (note 1) er it should be part of the Arctic Council, view of the widening acceptance of the broader ACS or a more peripheral ecosystem-based ocean management, Main 'Northwest Passage' shipping routes Median line Svalbard treaty area (note 8) category of Arctic cooperative mecha- however, one would expect increasingly through Canada claimed internal waters nisms; its relationship to (other) Arctic closer coordination and cooperation Council bodies; and the participatory between the Arctic Council and these status of Permanent Participants (and formally stand-alone instruments and © IBRU: Centre for Borders Research www.durham.ac.uk/ibru non-Arctic states). bodies. l

20 The Circle 2.2016

TheCircle0216.indd 20 27.05.2016 10.59 Maritime jurisdiction and boundaries in the Arctic region

180° E / W

)

Internal waters 3

(

c U

r A

Canada territorial sea and S exclusive economic zone (EEZ) A

Potential Canada continental shelf beyond 200 M (see note 1) 135°E 135°W Denmark territorial sea and EEZ

Denmark claimed continental shelf A

beyond 200 M (note 2)

C I

Iceland territorial sea and EEZ S A e S

Iceland claimed continental shelf N g beyond 200 M (note 2) d i R

U Norway territorial sea and EEZ / Fishery zone A v (Jan Mayen) / Fishery protection zone (Svalbard) o s

o R D n Norway claimed continental shelf o beyond 200 M (note 3) m North 90°W 90°E A o Pole L Russia territorial sea and EEZ

Russia claimed continental shelf beyond 200 M (note 4)

Norway-Russia Special Area (note 5)

USA territorial sea and EEZ G r ( e D e E n Potential USA continental shelf N l M a beyond 200 M (note 1) A n R d K ) Overlapping Canada / USA EEZ (note 6)

45°W 45°E Russia-USA Eastern Special Area (note 7) RUSSIA NORWAY

Unclaimed or unclaimable continental FINLAND shelf (note 1) ICE SWEDEN LAN D Polar stereographic projection 0°E / W Straight baselines 350 M from baselines (note 1) 0 nautical miles 004 at 66°N

0 kilometres 006 Agreed boundary 100 M from 2500 m isobath Iceland-Norway joint zone (note 9) (beyond 350 M from baselines) (note 1)

Main 'Northwest Passage' shipping routes Median line Svalbard treaty area (note 8) through Canada claimed internal waters

The Circle 2.2016 21

TheCircle0216.indd 21 27.05.2016 10.59 recommendations and identify new and Options for Arctic marine cooperation: emerging issues. ii.) policy coordination group: would recommend further action based on the scientific assessments/reports/recommendations; responsible for bringing the resulting policy recommendations the WWF vision to Ministers. Run by SAOs and would oversee Task Forces. The rapidly changing Arctic faces new challenges. There- iii.) implementation coordination fore, new approaches to marine governance are needed to group: would consider the recommen- ensure the sustainability of the entire region and a healthy dations provided by the policy group and develop general implementation Arctic Ocean. The Arctic Council (AC) is evolving from a plans with clear timelines and measures science dialogue forum to policy shaping regional instru- to guide Arctic States in developing ment. Improving the implementation of AC decisions and national implementation plans; would also identify where policies could be recommendations is essential to this evolution. implemented by other relevant international frameworks. Strengthening marine cooperation 1. Create strong Science, Policy in the Arctic will provide for better and Implementation interactions 2. Create an Arctic Council coordination, decision-making and through a new AC structure Marine Commission implementation mechanisms. It would Integrate Working Groups (WGs), Task The mandate of the Commission also address the gap between techni- Forces (TFs) and Senior Arctic Officials would be based on the four strategic cal and scientific analysis and policy (SAOs) through three subsidiary bodies objectives of the Arctic Marine Strategic design while supporting monitoring and within the AC with separate but comple- Plan 2015-2025 (AMSP). Its work would reporting on implementation within the mentary responsibilities: focus on ensuring full implementation AC. i.) science (or knowledge) coordina- of the entire plan. The Commission As an active observer to the AC, WWF tion group: would house the exist- would be composed of Permanent Par- is developing approaches and options ing WGs and expert groups; produce ticipants as well as high level represent- for Arctic marine cooperation. scientific assessments and reports on atives from each Arctic State with exper- WWF proposes four potential topics specified by Ministers, provide tise in marine issues and the authority options: corresponding scientific and technical to implement marine related policies and strategies in their respective States. The Commission would coordinate the work of all WGs and facilitate connec- tivity between the science and policy processes.

A polar bear rests on the ice Aug. 23, 2009, after following the U.S Coast Guard Cutter Healy for nearly an hour.

22 The Circle 2.2016

TheCircle0216.indd 22 27.05.2016 10.59 3. Establish an Arctic Marine attend different meetings depending on with international law, including the Cooperation Framework agenda items United Nations Convention on the Law Agreement vi.) strengthen the ACS by provid- of the Sea. A framework agreement would facili- ing it with a mandate to facilitate/ These options would cover all marine tate cooperative actions by the eight coordinate/administer a “marine elements of work under the AC man- Arctic states, acting through the AC agenda”among the WGs while serving date, including but not limited to: Ministers, to achieve the agreed goals as the Secretariat responsible for organ- Arctic shipping management; oil spill of the Arctic Marine Strategic Plan. A izing coordination sessions and Ministe- prevention; national coordination of framework agreement would function rial meetings, including the preparation ecosystem-based approaches to man- through a system of agreed action on of meeting documents. agement and cooperation to establish key Arctic marine issues as identified by These options are not mutually exclu- special management areas. All options Arctic Ministers, with implementation sive but can complement one another. should apply to the entire Arctic marine timeframes and procedures to measure WWF suggests that a new AC structure environment as per the geographical their success. The Arctic Council Secre- (based on policy coordination groups) area defined by the Council’s activities, tariat (ACS) would work with the Minis- could be implemented through a bind- from the surface of the sea to, but not ters to facilitate actions stemming from ing framework agreement on marine including, the seabed below. the Framework Agreement. cooperation. An implementation system These options would have implica- could include elements of the fourth tions for the current structure of the AC, 4. Build an Arctic Council Marine option. such as increasing capacity, and estab- Implementation System All options envisage a strong role lishing new positions and bodies. They This includes three steps to enhance the for the AC. Each option would work would also provide for better marine coordination and integration of all ele- within the Council, based on current coordination both within the council, ments of the marine agenda within the operating principles including the and in the Council’s dealings with the AC: continued strong involvement of Per- rest of the world, and for predictable iv.) scheduled “Arctic Council Marine manent Participants. These options do and measurable progress on marine Coordination Sessions” convening not prejudice the sovereignty of coastal issues. l experts from all working groups on states over their territorial seas, their marine issues with agenda focus on sovereign rights and jurisdiction in their specific cross-cutting issues addressing Exclusive Economic Zones regarding elements of the AMSP their continental shelves, or the rights of v.) regular meetings of Ministers other states in these areas in accordance responsible for marine implementation. There would be a concrete agenda as per coordination session. Advice would be strictly related to the implementation

of the AMSP. Different Ministers could U.S. Coast Guard – Creative Commons Photo: Patrick Kelley,

The Circle 2.2016 23

TheCircle0216.indd 23 27.05.2016 10.59 Return WWF Global Arctic Programme 275 Slater Street, Suite 810, Ottawa ON, K1P 5H9, Canada

The picture Plundering the Arctic Seas Photo: Stichting Rijksmuseum het Zuiderzeemuseum. Wikimedia Commons This painting by Dutch artist Abrahm Storck depicts whalers near Spitsbergen off the coast of Svalbard in 1690.

Why we are here To stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.

www.panda.org/arctic

TheCircle0216.indd 24 27.05.2016 10.59