Key Elements of Norway's Policy on the Arctic

Mr Chairman, Foreign Minister Møller. Dear host, Mr Enoksen, Premier of the Home Rule Government of Greenland,

1. The “diagnosis”

Protection of the Arctic environment has long been high on our agendas, reflecting the long-standing recognition of its unique and vulnerable character.

We have a long tradition in the High North, as witnessed by numerous scientific projects and expeditions. Take the achievements of Fridtjof Nansen, Robert Peary, Eivind Astrup, Knud Rasmussen, Roald Amundsen and many, many others. We also have long experience of various commercial projects in the High North. The area is not new to us.

Nor is the recognition of how vulnerable the area is. An international court case concerning the hunting of fur seals in the Bering Sea, dating back to 1893, bears witness to this. The Oslo agreement on polar bears of 1973 – eighty years later – is, therefore, far from the first instrument of its kind in this field.

The swift changes we are witnessing call for proactive policies and action with regard to the marine environment. International public opinion is also demanding that something be done. This is, of course, positive. Scientists, media, the general public are looking north. The attention is there, the focus is there.

However, to be effective, we must be concrete. Are there grounds for concern? And what do we need to address?

I invite you to envisage three different scenarios.

• The first scenario is far from abstract. And it is a familiar one. A large vessel is breaking in two, as the Exxon Valdez did off the coast of Alaska in 1989 in one of the worst oil spill disasters in modern times. It is still being talked about. Today, nineteen years later, the herring population has not yet fully resumed its traditional patterns of growth and migration.
• In the second scenario, we can replace the break-up of an oil tanker with a blow-out on an oil platform. We recall the potentially disastrous Ekofisk accident that happened in our own waters in 1977, which required an enormous rescue and containment effort.
• The third scenario seems less dramatic, but may have worse effects. It is the far from abstract or unthinkable scenario of heavy pollution as a result of leaks from land-based infrastructure, where the destabilisation may be linked in part to the melting of the permafrost, or where this phenomenon complicates the response.

However, none of these scenarios include the potential impacts of increased and uncontrolled tourism or fisheries.

The fact is that the melting of the ice-cap will, in all of these scenarios, lead to an increase in maritime traffic and other activity in waters that may seasonally be navigable but affected by dangerous drift ice, thus posing treacherous hazards. I need only mention the Titanic, which was hit by an iceberg south of Greenland and Newfoundland. Now, the threats are greater, as the risks are higher. But at least we can see the icebergs.

Mr Chairman,

The melting of the Greenland ice-cap due to changes in the global climate will affect us all. As we all know, this is a very serious situation, which is having serious impacts on ecosystems and the livelihoods of the local inhabitants.

We must address these challenges by taking effective and timely measures with regard to issues that the coastal States have responsibility or stewardship for. Such measures should be taken at the national level where possible, and through international cooperation where appropriate.

2. The legal framework: “the toolbox”

In order to respond to these three scenarios, we need two things: a legal framework and sound policies.

My point is this: we will not be able to address future environmental challenges without a rule-based response and without effective, concerted action that builds on the best available scientific data and a responsible and precautionary approach. Thus, the Norwegian Government’s policies are based on:

• a rule-based response,
• concerted action,
• knowledge, and
• the precautionary approach.

There are two issues in particular I would like to focus on here.

Firstly, there have been questions about the legal framework for the Arctic. Do we lack an adequate legal order for the Arctic Ocean?

My answer is no, we don’t. We have the overall framework – what I would call the rules of the game - in the form of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This is the comprehensive multilateral regime that applies to the Arctic Ocean.

Secondly, there have also been calls for an Arctic Treaty. In my view, we already have an ample basis for concrete action to promote responsible management policies, environmental protection and safety.

Defining something as a kind of legal vacuum could instead become a convenient excuse for inaction. The formulation, adoption and implementation of international legal rules that are applicable to all States concerned is a very time-consuming and often difficult process. We do not wish to weaken earlier normative achievements, but to strengthen implementation and accountability.

The Law of the Sea has relevance for the Arctic marine environment on: rules on ice-covered waters, maritime routes, protection in particularly vulnerable areas and scientific research. Let me explain:

3. The formulation of policies: using the “toolbox” to develop solutions to real problems

In my view, the challenges we are facing may have more to do with a lack of implementation of existing rules than with an actual lack of rules.

There is no lack of rules. There is a lack of policies.

The Arctic Ocean is challenging in this respect, particularly because of the need for implementing a number of rules. There has been a growing focus on this need recently, because the ice previously made economic utilisation of these areas impractical.

The States bordering the Arctic Ocean have to make a major contribution to jurisdictional clarity by clarifying the extent of their continental shelves and defining the boundaries of their economic zones. They must also adopt national legislation and enact policies that demonstrate an ability and willingness to implement existing rules. This provides a sound basis for environmental protection.

We should not, of course, exclude the possibility of new regulatory measures in particular fields. But only if real needs and gaps have been identified.

Our priority now is implementation of the overall framework through concrete policies by States in accordance with the rules of the game.

Now that the legal framework is in place, we need policies. This is the Norwegian Government’s primary focus. We need wise, sound and sustainable policies for this highly vulnerable region. This is one reason why we have defined the High North as our strategic priority.

There are a few more questions we might ask in this regard.

Firstly, does the Law of the Sea Convention contain rules on ice-covered waters? Yes, it does.

Secondly, have they been implemented nationally? Only to a very limited extent.

Thirdly, does the Convention allow for the adoption by the IMO of maritime routes in difficult or vulnerable waters? Yes, it does. When the need arises, we should discuss this with all our partners in the IMO.

The legal framework is there. Maritime routes and sea lanes, routing and communication measures, technical standards for vessels and equipment will not only improve navigation safety, but also constitute the basis for enhanced environmental protection and search and rescue.

Fourthly, does the Convention allow coastal States to adopt non-discriminatory measures for various purposes, including the establishment of protected areas, within economic zones? Yes, it does.

Fifthly, do the Convention and other international agreements contain rules designed to promote scientific research, environmental protection and other measures relevant to the Arctic Ocean? Yes, they do. Have these been fully implemented? Not really.

We are developing Norwegian policies for Norwegian waters - such as the integrated management plan for the Barents Sea. The plan addresses the various needs linked to energy exploration, management of fish resources, transport and environmental concerns.

The aim of the plan is to facilitate long-term value creation based on the sustainable use of the resources of the sea areas, while preserving the structures and productivity of their ecosystems. I believe that the basic approach of the plan – ecosystem-based management – should govern the management of the resources of the Arctic. 

4. Enhanced environmental cooperation through the Arctic Council

It appears that, in spite of our national responsibilities related to our coastal jurisdictions, a number of issues have to be addressed in international fora and through close cooperation with other key partners.

These include in particular the other members and observers of the Arctic Council and the European Union. They require enhanced cooperation in a number of fora, including the IMO, as already mentioned.

As chair of the Arctic Council, I would like to highlight the important comparative advantage the Council has in a number of key areas. We should moreover, together with our partners, strive to make the Council even more relevant in the light of the challenges that are arising.

I have been struck by Professor Oran B. Young’s recent analysis, in which he refers to the Arctic Council as an umbrella body dedicated to agenda setting and amplifying the voice of the Arctic. This also means cultivating an open and inclusive debate and putting greater focus on policy-making.

This is key to promoting the aims of the Council and integrating new knowledge into policies.

The Arctic Council is a central forum for discussing and formulating Arctic policies in several areas, based on shared knowledge and the inclusion of important stakeholders. I would like to underline the importance of a number of concrete advanced scientific projects based on openness, trust and cooperation. The same applies to the formulation of guidelines for integrated, knowledge-based management measures, and to offshore oil and gas activities and shipping.

The guidelines for Arctic oil and gas exploration are based on the precautionary principle. They recall existing obligations and define certain minimum procedures and standards. They leave it to the States concerned to go beyond them if required.

Increased economic activity will entail the increased use of sea-lanes in the High North for maritime transportation. Such developments will call for further efforts directed at strengthening maritime safety measures and oil spill prevention, preparedness and control. These issues are already being addressed both at the domestic level and in the bilateral Norwegian-Russian context. We would like to see such cooperation be extended to the wider regional level.

During the International Polar Year, we made great strides in developing scientific research around the “Arctic Rim”. I would advocate a follow-up of the IPY that to a larger degree includes a focus on marine scientific research in Arctic waters.

The contributions we are making as coastal States to the mapping of the continental shelves and for other purposes are important in creating a broader, shared knowledge base - which in turn is vital to effective marine policies.

Mr Chairman, 

The coastal States have a special responsibility for protecting the marine environment. We cannot afford to fail. We must take steps, both nationally and in cooperation with other countries, to ensure the protection and preservation of the fragile marine environment of the Arctic Ocean.

Thus, it is a matter of commitment. We must work together to find solutions to what can be called the ultimate political challenge of our generation – climate change. But – as Nobel Laureate Al Gore reminded us in Oslo in December – “political will is a renewable resource”. And as the Canadian poet and scholar Henry Beissel once said - “North is where all parallels meet”. Let us use the High North and the Arctic environment to meet and bring together our political will and our commitment in a concerted effort to address this challenge. – Where parallels meet, that is.