Antarktis-traktaten 50 år

Remarks by Jonas Gahr Støre, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway

Check against delivery

[Illustration: Title and Arctic in the background.]

Secretary of State,
Excellencies,
Ladies and gentlemen,

As chair of the Arctic Council, I am deeply honoured to speak to you on this important occasion. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for hosting this event and for inviting me to speak on behalf of Norway – a country with both an Arctic and an Antarctic identity.

Fifteen years ago, some 90 years after Roald Amundsen as the first man in history reached the South Pole, in 1911, the Norwegian explorer Liv Arnesen became the first woman to reach the South Pole on skis alone and unassisted. It took her 50 days to cover the 1 200 kilometres. At the South Pole on Christmas Eve in 1994 she wrote in her diary: “Most goals can be achieved as long as the motivation is real and sincere enough.”

Goals, motivation and will. Real and sincere. A guide for us all as we learn the dramatic truth about climate change that is unfolding right now at both poles. It is a clarion call for concerted action. 

        *****

The polar regions are the world’s largest wilderness areas. Their environmental value is immeasurable. Their natural riches are immense.

So too are the challenges they are facing. The Antarctic and the Arctic are far away from industrialised areas, but are nonetheless threatened by our modern society – by us.

A hundred years ago, large parts of the Antarctic and the Arctic had not even been discovered. They are still among the areas of the world we know least about.

But we know one thing. Knowledge is paramount. Today we know that some of the fastest and largest climate changes are taking place in the polar regions, and that our ability to understand the deeper meaning and implications of this knowledge may determine whether humanity will be able to cope with the challenges of global warming.

[Illustration: In August 2004 Senator Hillary Clinton visited Svalbard.]

Seeing is believing. I am sure, Madam Secretary, that you remember how these climate changes were already clearly visible during your visit to Svalbard, in Norway’s High North, a few years ago.

There are five points I would like to make on this occasion. The first is that the ice is melting.

[Illustration: Melting ice. Kongsfjorden in Svalbard, 1928 vs. 2008.]

Two photos. Taken 80 years apart. Nothing is the same. We should all be worried. In the past few decades, the annual mean temperature in the Arctic has been rising at almost twice the rate as in the rest of the world. We have witnessed the spectacular retreat and collapse of ice shelves.

These dramatic changes are having global effects. Ice melting in the polar areas will have implications in the form of rising sea levels and accelerating global warming. 

Other parts of the world may be much more severely affected by climate change. The effects are far more dramatic for the people of Central Africa, who are witnessing the drying up of Lake Chad.

However, the polar areas are the key to understanding what climate change we can expect in the rest of the world.

But the polar thaw is also political. The freeze of the Cold War has been replaced by international cooperation both in the Antarctic and in the Arctic. This is very encouraging. Cooperation is absolutely essential.

And this is why we are here. For decades we have been able to cooperate.

Which leads me to my second point: the international legal order in the polar regions.

[Illustration: Maps: Arctic vs. Antarctic.]

The Arctic and the Antarctic both have a polar climate, but they are fundamentally different. As you know, the name Antarctica means the opposite of the Arctic. While the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land masses, the Antarctic is a land mass surrounded by oceans. Antarctica has no permanent population except researchers. In the Arctic people have lived and prospered for thousands of years.

The five countries surrounding the Arctic Ocean – the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark/Greenland and my own country, Norway – have internationally recognised sovereignty over land and, as a consequence, jurisdiction over maritime zones.

In the Antarctic, the situation as regards claims to sovereignty and jurisdiction was frozen in the Antarctic Treaty. So this is a very different situation.

The Antarctic Treaty is therefore an agreement to disagree. By looking beyond the disagreement on jurisdiction, it enabled a well functioning legal order that deals with the challenges at hand. Thus, peace, stability, environmental protection and international scientific collaboration have been maintained in Antarctica. This is a remarkable achievement.

As in Antarctica, the legal framework in the Arctic is already in place. The Arctic Ocean is not governed by a special regime, or by a specific treaty. This does not leave the Arctic in a legal vacuum. On the contrary. The Arctic fully benefits from the principles and regulations enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in addition to various environmental and fisheries agreements, IMO rules and other general regulations. More than 150 states are parties to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. It reflects international customary law on a large number of key issues.

The five coastal states bordering the central Arctic Ocean have repeatedly and recently reaffirmed that the Law of the Sea provides a solid foundation for continued development of the international governance framework for the region.

So the challenges in this region have more to do with a lack of implementation of existing rules than with an actual lack of rules. In other words: there is no lack of rules, there is a lack of policies.

I see no need for a new, comprehensive international legal regime governing the Arctic Ocean. But I see a real need for governments to come together to develop policies and rules to manage growing human activity. A real challenge, but this is why we have governments and diplomacy – to deal responsibly with challenges.

As a result of warmer waters in the polar regions, new sea routes are emerging.

We see new potential for exploiting energy resources and increased human activity in a fragile polar environment. We observe this in the Arctic. Sailing time from Rotterdam to Yokohama could be shortened by 40% if ships were able to sail east through the Northwest Passage or the Northeast Passage – or even to one day if they could sail straight across the Polar Basin.

If we put all of these elements together and add relations between Russia and its Arctic neighbours, we may have a recipe for increased levels of conflict.

But it does not have to be that way. And it should not be. We have the legal instruments to avoid conflict, we have regional and circumpolar institutions, and we have an opportunity to develop new policies to meet new challenges together.

Cooperation in the Arctic is of more recent date than in Antarctica. However, the Arctic Council, currently chaired by Norway, is playing an increasingly significant role. It is the world’s only truly circumpolar organisation. In addition to the governments of the United States, Canada, Russia and the five Nordic countries, permanent participants representing indigenous peoples take part – as well as a number of observer states.

The Arctic Council has an untapped potential for cooperation and policy shaping – to prevent conflict in dealing with increased transport, the search for energy and the environmental effects of increased human activity. These issues are being given top priority during the Norwegian chairmanship, as also reflected in the Norwegian Government’s High North Strategy.

My third point concerns knowledge and science.

[Illustration: Troll research station, Antarctica.]

A common characteristic of both polar regions is the importance of international scientific collaboration. Ever since the first International Polar Year, in 1882–83, cooperation between scientists from many nations has been a defining feature of activity in these regions.

While the International Arctic Science Committee and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research are the long-term platforms for international scientific cooperation, the fourth International Polar Year has provided an impetus for bipolar science. The tasks at hand are larger and more complex than any nation can undertake alone. The Arctic Council and the Antarctic Treaty cooperation are the critical forums in this regard.

In the Arctic Council we have agreed to initiate an Arctic Legacy Project. It will strengthen international scientific cooperation in the long term and ensure that the world community can capitalise on the investments made during the International Polar Year.

At this Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Norway will propose a similar project in this context, and I would also suggest that the Arctic Council and the Consultative Meeting establish close cooperation on these projects. Specifically, the aim of the Arctic Legacy Project is to enhance scientists’ access to polar areas and strengthen efforts to recruit young researchers to polar science.

[Illustration: Roald Amundsen 1911 vs. Liv Arnesen 1994.]

Norway has a long tradition of polar exploration and science. As I mentioned, in 1911 Roald Amundsen was the first to set foot on the South Pole. Explorers like Liv Arnesen and many others have followed in his footsteps – or tracks. Since the days of the pioneers, Norway has taken active part in polar research in both the Arctic and the Antarctic.

[Illustration: Troll research station, Antarctica.]

Our research station Troll in Dronning Maud Land, Antarctica, was opened as an all-year station in 2005. Earlier this year the Norwegian Minister of the Environment hosted 15 high-level climate officials, including eight of his colleagues, at the research station for discussions on climate change. 

Again, as is often the case, you find that seeing is believing.

At 79 degrees north, in Ny-Ålesund, Svalbard, ten countries have established permanent research facilities. The Norwegian Government has made considerable efforts to provide a unique infrastructure for international research and easy access to the Arctic.

Knowledge is key. My fourth point concerns the environment.

[Illustration: Polar bear struggling on thin ice.]

The polar regions have always been remote and difficult to access. This is now about to change, particularly in the Arctic.

The Arctic sea ice has been reduced dramatically during the last few decades. This will have devastating consequences for polar bears – and also for ice-dependent seals. The only long-term solution to protect the polar regions is to reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases to a sustainable level. Ice melting in the polar areas will have worldwide effects.

Which brings me to Copenhagen. We need a global climate agreement to cope with these challenges. We need a successful outcome of the COP-15 meeting on climate change in Copenhagen in December. These issues are now quite rightly being put on agendas worldwide.

Climate change is a vital area of cooperation in the Arctic Council, particularly following the groundbreaking 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. The next Arctic Council ministerial meeting will take place in Tromsø in Norway on 29 April. The day before, former Vice President Al Gore and I will co-chair a special ministerial meeting on global ice melting. Our purpose is to issue yet another call for concerted action in the run-up to Copenhagen.

The ice is melting not only in the polar regions, but also in most other ice-covered areas of the world, and affecting ecosystems. This is also about the Himalayas, the Andes and even Kilimanjaro. Take the billions who depend on stable access to water from the Himalayas. Now they may be heading for decades of flooding and then an eternity of drought.

We also need to place climate change higher on the agenda of the Antarctic Treaty cooperation. The parties should consider the status and impacts of climate change in Antarctica, the consequences for Antarctic governance and how to communicate new knowledge to the world. I would propose that the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting decide to convene a Meeting of Experts on climate change before the next Consultative Meeting in 2010.

My fifth and final point concerns maritime transport.

Polar climate change is also posing challenges that have to be handled regionally. A milder climate and reduced sea ice will increase access by sea to these regions for tourists and for commercial activities such as shipping, fisheries and the offshore petroleum industry. However, if the demand for energy resources in the High North increases, we must focus on keeping tension low.

[Illustration: Map, maritime transport, the Northwest Passage, Northern Route.]

Remember that modern polar exploration started over 400 years ago with the search for a new trade route from Europe to China. Now this may become a reality. The first significant change in economic activity in the Arctic is likely to be in the area of commercial maritime transport.

There may be different views about how much time and money could be saved by opening up for commercial transport through the Northwest Passage and the Northern Route – as shown here on the maps. But there is general agreement that we must have the necessary infrastructure in place to deal with this, not least with regard to monitoring, surveillance and search and rescue.

The Arctic Council’s role is decision-shaping rather than decision-making. As outgoing chair, I clearly see the need for the Arctic Council to play a more active role as a provider of guidelines, best practices and knowledge to other international forums. We must develop search and rescue services for both the Antarctic and the Arctic Oceans. And we should put Arctic and Antarctic shipping higher on the agenda of the International Maritime Organization.

Moreover, we should share experience and best practices on integrated ocean management, adopt and implement Arctic offshore oil and gas guidelines, and consider arrangements for regional fisheries management.

[Illustration: Photo of passengers rescued from the cruise liner “Ocean Nova” in Antarctica, which ran aground on 17 February 2009.]

In Antarctica too, new challenges are arising due to the rapid increase in tourism – as shown here when the cruise liner “Ocean Nova” ran aground two months ago.

Visits to Antarctica must be welcomed as a good way of learning about a fantastic region. However, it is the duty of all parties to set standards that adequately protect the Antarctic environment and ensure that all activities are conducted as safely as possible. And they must not disturb local scientific activities.

I therefore fully support the concept of a Strategic Vision for Antarctic Tourism proposed by the United Kingdom at our meeting. The vision will be used to inform and guide further work to underpin the development of a comprehensive and robust framework to manage Antarctic tourism activities. The adoption of a new protocol on Antarctic tourism could be a new goal of the Antarctic Treaty cooperation.

*****

[Illustration: Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen crossing Antarctica.]

Madam Secretary,
Ladies and gentlemen,

To sum up, the issues we are dealing with in the polar regions are closely related to a number of global issues that need to be addressed. Climate change is the most demanding challenge – it is the ultimate political challenge of our generation. Addressing it will require massive efforts and strong political will. However, such political will should be regarded as a renewable resource. The more we mobilise and use it, the more political will we will generate. Both the Antarctic Treaty cooperation and the Arctic Council are in need of this will.

When the explorer Fridtjof Nansen set out to cross the then uncharted Greenland ice sheet in 1888, he started from the unpopulated, hostile east coast. He burned his boats, leaving only one way to go – forward. Determined to reach his goal, he made sure that retreat was no alternative.

I am not asking you to burn your boats, bridges or other means of retreat. But let all of us bring together our political will, and move forward together and do what is necessary to meet the challenges and preserve the polar regions for present and future generations.

Thank you.