While the Arctic is not typically given the attention it deserves from the rest of the international community, over the last decade a number of key events have shaped the future of this critical region. Climate change, in particular, has triggered renewed a dire need to pay consideration to Arctic issues.
First, the release of the U.S. Geological Survey Report in 2008 marked a reassessment of the Arctic’s energy potential. Estimations of untapped resources in the region were amplified by the media and boosted new investment plans and projects. Second, data concerning rampant climate change and progressive reduction of the summer ice cap contributed to the perception that the Arctic would quickly turn into a navigable ocean, opening up new possibilities of trans-Arctic shipping. Also the Artic faces increased political pressures; for example, during their Arktika expedition in 2007, the Russian explorer Chilingarov planted a Russian flag on the continental shelf under the North Pole in a gesture that was widely seen as a threat to sovereignty of the other Arctic states and, importantly, as the start of a global ‘race to the Arctic.’
In addition there is no denying the Arctic is melting and its ecosystems and the people living there are affected by these developments. Thawing permafrost impacts harvesting activities on which indigenous peoples heavily depend. Animal species and biodiversity will inevitably change in their composition. This is not a negative trend per se, but it will certainly have negative impacts on the long-term equilibrium of ecosystems. Reduced sea ice will also mean increased economic activity, fishing, oil and gas drilling, navigation, and shipping. All these human activities have an impact on wildlife, vegetation, and the lifestyle of indigenous peoples.
While typically an item on the agenda that gets put lower on the list with regards to the discussion on climate change, the Artic has begun to become more on advocates attention. On September 21, an estimated 400,000 people in New York participated in the People’s Climate Change March, a movement designed to raise environmental awareness. Among the many activists, comprised of students, minorities, and labor groups, were climate-focused campaigners and non-profits such as Greenpeace, which voiced its particular concerns about the Arctic.
According to John Deans, Arctic campaigner for the non-profit, “Greenpeace was at the People’s Climate Change March campaigning specifically for the Arctic region because a lot of the issues directly linked to climate change stem from that part of the world.” Indeed, after the rally, Greenpeace gave the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon a petition with six million signatures, calling for long-term protection of the Arctic. The region is warming more than twice as fast as the global average. To address the urgency of this issue, Greenpeace and other like-minded groups are demanding a ban on oil exploration that endangers the fragile ecosystem. Ban Ki-moon accepted the Greenpeace petition, stating, “I receive this as a common commitment toward our common future, protecting our environment, not only in the Arctic, but all over the world.” Ban Ki-moon then informed leaders that rapid warming of the globe was not consistent with planning oil and gas development in the Arctic.
Leaving the Arctic oil untouched will prevent the risk of major oil spills and also keep the carbon that caused the melting to begin in the first place safely in the ground. In fact, the Arctic contains vast oil and natural gas reserves. The proposed area of a sanctuary is in international waters covering the central Arctic Ocean, beyond the 200 nautical mile boundary of each Arctic coastal state's exclusive economic zone. This region is technically defined as “high seas” under the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and is universally recognized as the global commons, the shared responsibility of the entire international community. Within the Arctic Sanctuary there will be no fishing, no exploration for or extraction of hydrocarbons or other minerals from the seabed and no military action. The area would be approximately 2.8 million km2, roughly the size of the Mediterranean Sea.
Although not all shipping activity will be prohibited, strict environmental controls will apply to all shipping in this area– heavy fuel oil use will, for example, not be allowed, a practice that has already been adopted in Antarctic waters. “As we approach the U.N. Summit in Paris next year, world leaders need to realize the problem is getting worse,” says Deans. “The Arctic isn’t going to stop melting, and the world needs to turn attention to alternative energy and setting the Arctic areas aside globally if action is going to be taken to combat climate change.”