If you see a web page not available error message on the video, please refresh the page.
As countries surrounding the freshly exposed waters in the Arctic region are poised to claim the areas for commercial fishing and other exploits, more than 2000 scientists have signed an open letter begging for a moratorium on the use of natural resources in the area, until ecological studies are completed. The warming climate trend has melted a 2.8 million km square of ice in an international waters area, and raised policy concerns.
In a document titled Expanding the EU’s Institutional Capacities
in the Arctic Region
Policy Briefing and Key Recommendations, Roderick Kefferpütz & Danila Bochkarev state:
According to the recent U.S. Geological Survey, the region holds significant oil and natural gas
reserves. Melting ice cover would facilitate the exploitation of these resources and open up access
to fish stocks and particularly new shipping routes, which promise shorter distances for trade between
Europe and East Asia. On the other hand, the melting of the Arctic’s ice cap, while increasing
the region’s geopolitical and geo-economic importance, significantly exacerbates its environmental
fragility, threatens the traditional way of life of the indigenous population and increases the
potential for conflict in the region.
What countries stand to profit from Arctic ice melt? Kefferpütz and Bochkarev explain:
Besides the Arctic 5 countries (A5) that encircle the North Pole (United States, Canada, Russia,
Norway, Denmark and Greenland), the European Union has signalled a clear interest in the region.
Commissioners Piebalgs and Borg have both stressed the need to tap the region’s natural resources
while the EU’s High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana,
acknowledged the Arctic in his recent report on climate change and international security.
The authors point out that the mixture of power and resources could well result in militarization of the new Arctic zone, meaning that climate change and international security will likely be connected in the future. China and Japan are also involved, with Japan funding research for Arctic-class tankers. Legal issues, area governance and regulations are complex and will likely be the topic of concern and discussion among policymakers and international lawyers. Currently, no clear regulations are in place.
Meanwhile, the newly exposed area contains a new and fragile ecosystem. Scientists have insufficient data at this point on what is in the ecosystem, let alone the impact of removing what is there through commercial fishing, for example.
The authors note that the New Arctic zone has fish stocks, metals and likely the world’s largest untapped hydrocarbon (oil) reserves. They also predict “Heavy militarisation, a relic of the Cold War, remains an important challenge for the foreseeable future, particularly in the context of policies pursued by Russia, the U.S. and Canada.”
Will the scientists be kicked to the curb in the name of money? Will the Arctic be kicked to the curb in the name of money?