Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr Jan Petersen

Spitzbergen and the Arctic – A Norwegian Perspective

NATO Parliamentary Assembly,
57th Rose-Roth Seminar,
Svalbard, 6 August 2004

Check against delivery

Mr Chairman,
Distinguished parliamentarians,
Dear friends,

Having been a member of NATO’s Parliamentary Assembly for 16 years, I am particularly pleased to be meeting you here on Svalbard. Last August I had the privilege of hosting the visit of Congressman Bereuter and Secretary General Simon Lunn to these islands. Like most people who visit Svalbard, they were fascinated by the atmosphere and the landscape and by the opportunities it offers.

Simon, whom we all know as a man of action, immediately realised that the issues related to climate change and challenges in the High North would be of interest to the members of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. He therefore used part of his visit to explore possibilities to that end. And here we are today, exactly one year later.

During the Cold War years a visit to Svalbard by NATO’s Parliamentary Assembly would have been most contentious. Yesterday, you visited the Russian mining community in Barentsburg. The political climate has certainly changed. Co-operation has become the key word.

The northern areas are now among the most peaceful corners of the world. East-West confrontation and military strategic interests have been replaced by co-operation and a common concern for the serious challenges facing all the Arctic countries. Meeting these challenges effectively requires partnership. I am grateful to Doug and Simon for their initiative to hold this seminar, and I warmly welcome your decision to come here and focus on the northern areas.

Today I will share with you some observations on the challenges we are facing in this part of the world. One of these is to utilise the rich resources and huge human and economic potential without damaging fragile habitats. I will also focus on how we can reduce the risk of a nuclear disaster, whether it is accidental or the result of calculated action by terrorists.

The Norwegian Government wishes to enhance our understanding of the challenges and opportunities in the northern areas. Last year, I asked a group of experts to identify these challenges and opportunities, and to propose how best to respond to them. The expert group, chaired by professor Olav Orheim, presented a comprehensive report last December. This report will be followed up by a white paper to the Storting later this fall.

At the outset I would like to say a few words about Svalbard itself, and the importance Norway attaches to the governance of this unique archipelago with its vulnerable environment.

The value of clear, predictable rules and regulations has been demonstrated on Svalbard for more than 80 years. The Svalbard Treaty of 1920 ended Svalbard’s status as a no-man’s-land. One major reason why Norway’s sovereignty over Svalbard was recognised, was the prevailing desire after World War I to keep the archipelago outside the scope of great power rivalry. The Treaty prohibits use of the territory for warlike purposes, and ensures equal treatment of nationals and companies from the acceding countries in a number of areas.

The Svalbard Treaty clearly states that it only applies to the islands and territorial waters, which as you may know were extended to 12 miles as of 1 January this year. Beyond these territorial waters, Norway has the same rights and obligations as any other coastal state under the Law of the Sea. In 1977 Norway established a 200-mile Fisheries Protection Zone around Svalbard in order to ensure the sound management of the living resources in the area. Although there is no obligation to do so, Norway has chosen to issue non-discriminatory regulations for this zone. The continental shelf in the area is a continuation of the continental shelf extending from mainland Norway and has no special legal status compared to other parts of the Norwegian shelf.

Norway’s sovereignty entails both the right and the obligation to pass and enforce legislation for Svalbard. The Norwegian authorities are very aware of Norway’s responsibility to ensure that nationals of all Parties to the Treaty have equal rights of access and entry, and the freedom to engage in certain kinds of activities on an equal basis with Norwegian nationals - in accordance with the applicable legislation.

Svalbard has a unique environmental value. Its 61 000 square kilometres – about twice the size of Belgium – make up a considerable part of the last remaining wilderness in Europe.

Last September we decided to establish five new protected areas on these islands in order to ensure that the full diversity of natural habitats and ecosystems is represented. This is the most extensive establishment of protected areas in Norway since 1973, and means that these areas now cover about 65 per cent of Svalbard. Our aim is that future generations will have the same opportunities to enjoy this unspoilt wilderness as we have.

Svalbard is well situated for Arctic research. It is accessible, and the climate is relatively mild. The Norwegian government has therefore committed itself to the further development of Svalbard as a platform for international research co-operation. Currently scientists from about 20 countries are doing research here.

Even more countries are expected to send scientists to Ny-Ålesund when the new marine laboratory becomes operative next summer, and we are doing our utmost to facilitate the work of these scientists.

The University Centre on Svalbard is a cornerstone of these activities. Half of the students and employees at the centre come from abroad. This also adds to the international profile of science on Svalbard, a welcome development we would like to see continued.

Mr Chairman,

For Norway, developing our co-operation with Russia in the north is especially important, and we are pursuing this bilaterally and within the framework of international organisations.

Norway and Russia share a 196 kilometre-long border, which was closed for many decades, being one of the two border lines where NATO and Soviet forces were directly facing each other. Today there are more than 100 000 border crossings a year. During the last 10 years we have witnessed the development of a remarkably dynamic network across the border, between local authorities, business enterprises, schools and NGOs. These are grassroots contacts, on a people-to-people basis.

Today’s flourishing contact between Norway and Russia in the north is remarkable compared with the era of the Soviet Union, although in fact it is similar to the situation before the Russian revolution in 1917.

The bilateral relationship with the Russian Government has also greatly improved. It is my impression that there is a genuine wish on the Russian side to further develop our cooperation. The fact that Foreign Minister Lavrov, for his first official bilateral visit in June this year, chose to go to Norway with a forward looking agenda, illustrates this.

But, we are also from time to time reminded of views from the “old days”, and of the fact that the old Soviet style rhetoric is not yet entirely forgotten. Our relationship with Russia today can best be described as a “two or three steps forward – one step back” process. The overall impression, however, is that of a good neighbourly relationship that is steadily improving.

Developing co-operation and contacts across the borders in the north has been greatly helped by the regional co-operation structures in Northern Europe, primarily the Barents Euro-Arctic Council.

The Barents co-operation has now entered its second decade and is agreed to be a success. I think there are two reasons for this. First, history shows that close co-operation between the peoples of the North is natural – and necessary. Life would be poorer and the economy weaker without it.

The second reason is that the regional level of co-operation has been given a distinct role. The local authorities of 13 counties in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia are represented in the Barents Regional Council, and have launched and implemented a large number of projects and initiatives over the years. Representatives of the indigenous peoples in the region also play an active role in the Council’s work.

Norway currently holds the chairmanship of the Barents Council. We are focusing on economic co-operation issues, education, justice and home affairs, search and rescue co-operation, and health. These are the areas with the most pressing problems – and the most promising opportunities.

Let me give you an example: education and job prospects are a vital factor for young people when they are considering whether to stay in the region. We therefore give priority to co-operation on education and training. One particular task is to introduce the Bologna process in the region. As you know, this process is being implemented throughout Europe, with the aim of allowing students and lecturers greater mobility and ensuring the mutual recognition of diplomas.

When the Barents co-operation was launched in 1993, we had high expectations of the development of economic relations across the border. Unfortunately, these hopes have not materialised. Trade and investment are lagging behind. One of the problems is the differences in economic structure between Russia and the other countries in the region. Another is trade barriers. I hope development of the region’s rich oil and gas deposits will be a driving force for the other sectors as well.

Norway is a committed partner in the Arctic Council. The Council brings together all the Arctic nations – the Nordic countries, Russia, Canada and the United States. This has made it an efficient tool for placing circumpolar issues high on the political agenda, both in our countries and in international fora. The Council also have an important role in bringing climate change to the attention of governments.

One of the Arctic Council’s strengths is that it has fully integrated the indigenous peoples of the region. This is of great benefit to the participating governments and, I believe, also to the indigenous peoples themselves.

In addition to this, parliamentarians are playing a commendable role in developing circumpolar co-operation. The Arctic University and the Arctic Human Development Report were both the result of initiatives by parliamentarians. Both are now important elements of the work of the Arctic Council.

The European Union plays an important role in Arctic affairs, both as an active participant in the councils in the region and through its Northern Dimension. Norway has taken an active part in the development of the Northern Dimension Action Plans. Although it has been claimed that the Northern Dimension should provide more resources to projects and initiatives, I view it as an important instrument in our efforts to further develop co-operation in the Barents and Arctic regions.

We have actively advocated the further development of NATO’s relations with Russia.

Strengthened co-operation in the northern areas between Russia and its Western partners and between Russia and NATO is crucial. Only through trust and close co-operation with Russia can we get to grips with the challenges. As one of Russia’s neighbours, Norway considers the NATO-Russia Council to be of fundamental importance in this connection.

The most immediate challenge is the management of the large amounts of nuclear material in the Russian part of the Barents Region. The Kola Peninsula has the world’s largest concentration of nuclear installations. Not only do these represent a threat to the vulnerable environment of the High North, but there is also a real danger that nuclear material from these installations could fall into the hands of terrorists.

11 September made us realise that terrorists would not hesitate to use weapons and materials of mass destruction. Nuclear safety and security must therefore be an integral part of our common efforts to counter the new security threats.

There are good reasons why nuclear safety has been at the centre of Norwegian-Russian co-operation for the last 10 years. In the Kola Peninsula there is an old nuclear power station; close to 100 nuclear submarines waiting to be dismantled; service ships with large quantities of spent nuclear fuel on board, some of it damaged and therefore difficult to handle; a run-down storage site with fuel from 100 reactors; and tons of solid and liquid nuclear waste in Andreyev Bay.

In addition to all this there are numerous lighthouses scattered along the northwestern Russian coast powered by highly radioactive strontium batteries. Experts have pointed out that these batteries are suitable for making dirty bombs. During the past few years there have been thefts from such installations, although fortunately the thieves were not after the batteries but the precious metals protecting them.

The nuclear task facing us is enormous – and it is urgent. Small countries can offer important contributions, and Norway has taken a lead in assisting Russia with the safe removal of these radioactive batteries. Furthermore, last year we signed contracts on the dismantlement of two non-strategic nuclear submarines from Russia’s Northern Fleet, the first country to engage in the dismantlement of this type of submarine. In June this year we informed the Russians that, since our experience of this project was so favourable, we are ready to undertake more of the same.

The Russians should also be commended on the job they are doing themselves. They understand very well that the ultimate responsibility for the situation – and for the cleanup – is theirs. And they are allocating huge resources to this task from their own budgets. But they still need our assistance.

However, solving the problem requires broad and concerted international action. Action we are now about to take.

Senators Nunn and Lugar were among the first to realise the need to deal with the repository of weapons and material in the states of the former Soviet Union. Since 1991 the Nunn-Lugar programme has destroyed more than 6 000 nuclear warheads and ensured secure storage for 260 tons of fissile material that could be used to build a nuclear bomb.

The lesson of 9/11 has prompted the G8 countries to launch their Global Partnership against weapons and materials of mass destruction. Huge resources – 20 billion USD – will be made available for projects in the former Soviet Union. The EU Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership has also mobilised substantial economic resources, and a number of countries are now actively involved in nuclear safety and security efforts in Russia on a bilateral basis.

This is a new and promising situation. But with more countries engaged and substantial resources being made available for concrete action, we need to be well co-ordinated. We must avoid duplication of effort and bottlenecks. Our contributions must be channelled to those projects that give the best value for money, and thorough environmental and risk assessments must be made for all projects.

Mr Chairman,

Science has documented that the signs of climate change are more pronounced in the Arctic than in other regions of the world. Hence, global warming and climate change is now the most pressing item on the Arctic environmental agenda.

The ice of the Arctic is melting. Open sea has already been observed around the North Pole in the summer. The melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet broke all records in 2002, and current estimates indicate that the ice sheet will have disappeared by the end of this millennium.

Although the speed and consequences of this climate change are not yet fully clear, we must be prepared for the fact that climate change and natural resource management in the Arctic will have an increasing impact on the entire planet. It may also have enormous economic consequences.

Since Arctic pollution originates to a large extent in areas south of the Arctic, measures to protect its environment cannot be limited to the region. Hence, we must study the problems and work out the solutions together.

There is an increasing understanding for this need. In two weeks I will be receiving Senator Mc Cain and five other US senators here at Svalbard. They have all expressed a wish to increase their knowledge of the challenges posed by the climate change.

At the ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council in Alaska in 2000, the ministers commissioned a four-year scientific assessment of climate change in the Arctic – the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.

A broad network of eminent scientists has been working on this study, and the report will be discussed at the Arctic Council ministerial meeting this autumn. This will provide us – the politicians – with the information we need to decide what concrete action to take.

Mr Chairman,

Experts estimate that about 25 per cent of the world’s undiscovered petroleum resources are located in the Arctic. Large deposits have already been discovered, especially in the Russian Arctic. Norway’s petroleum activities are also moving north.

In our efforts to exploit petroleum resources in the region, we must take care to safeguard the rich and unpolluted nature of the Barents Sea. Our goal is to establish a framework that makes it possible to balance the need to safeguard the environment against commercial interests – fisheries, aquaculture, shipping and the petroleum industry.

The growing demand for imported energy from both the US and the EU will inevitably increase the level of oil and gas exploration and production in the Russian north. Hence, more tankers will be sailing along the Norwegian coast on their way to Europe and North America. Protecting the highly vulnerable environment along the coast of northern Norway and in the Barents Sea from oil tanker accidents will be an enormous challenge in the coming years.

The first field in Norway’s part of the Barents Sea is now being developed – the liquid natural gas project “Snøhvit”. This is the largest industrial project that has ever been undertaken in our northernmost county of Finnmark, and it will provide a major boost to employment and the economy of the region.

However, this positive development is hampered by the fact that the delimitation line between Norway and Russia in the Barents Sea is yet to be determined – after more than 30 years of negotiations. As Norway and other North Sea States have clearly experienced, the clarity and predictability provided by maritime boundaries is a precondition for investment and high cost exploration and exploitation. Banks, companies, governments and others need to know which rules apply in matters as diverse as licenses, workers’ safety, taxation and the environment. Maritime boundaries are also an essential basis for agreeing on how to divide fields, how to co-operate on exploiting fields, and – no less important – how to establish practical and efficient transportation systems for oil and gas.

Mr Chairman,

The Arctic contains rich and valuable natural resources. At the same time it has one of the most vulnerable environments in the world, exposed as it is to both environmental disasters and exploitation by terrorists. Governance of the Arctic has an impact on global environmental challenges, global resource management and world-wide security, an impact that will only increase with time.

What we do today in these territories will affect them for years and years to come. The tasks we face are immense, and so are the consequences if we fail to carry them out. We all have an obligation to work together in order to manage Arctic resources in a sustainable way that will benefit present and future generations.

Arctic exploration in earlier times was perhaps more competitive than co-operative. But today co-operation is the only answer to the challenges of the region. And it is also the most fruitful means of taking advantage of its opportunities.

Thank you for your attention.