Arctic Technologies Need to Be Improved

Interview

Economic development in the Arctic has recently been in the global spotlight. We discussed plans for exploiting natural resources in the Arctic, and the potential impact that economic activities may have on the region’s environment, with Alexander Shestakov, Director of the Global Arctic Programme at the World Wildlife Fund

Interview

Economic development in the Arctic has recently been in the global spotlight. We discussed plans for exploiting natural resources in the Arctic, and the potential impact that economic activities may have on the region’s environment, with Alexander Shestakov, Director of the Global Arctic Programme at the World Wildlife Fund

How would developing the Arctic’s natural resources impact its environment and biodiversity?

It depends on how economic development is planned. Unless certain mandatory requirements are taken into consideration, development is likely to have a destructive effect on the Arctic, given the peculiarities of the region’s ecosystems and vulnerabilities. However, in a number of areas of economic activity, such as shipping, tourism or fishing, it is possible to achieve what is called sustainable development. Such development will contribute to the prosperity of the Northern peoples and Arctic countries in general, and at the same time maintain the stability of regional ecosystems. Everything depends on legislation and the practices to be used as well as on how Arctic resource development is planned and carried out.

Photo: Alexander Shestakov

How can risks to the Arctic environment inherent in the natural resources sector be minimized?

There are several available options, of which a radical one is limiting large-scale oil and gas production in the region. This raises a host of issues, environmental as well as economic. Is offshore hydrocarbon production justified for Russia in terms of efficiency? It would probably be wiser to increase the efficiency of inland oilfields already in production.

There is also a need for improving environmental risk assessment. And, importantly, this should be done in the context of the entire Arctic. Based on an assessment of environmental risks, technical or otherwise, efforts should be made to mitigate them, since currently next to nothing is being done.

Importantly, we know very little about Arctic ecosystems or their response to any potential impact by man. This shortage of knowledge can be remedied not only by relying on scientific institutes and bodies, but also if assisted by companies operating in the region, since they, too, are engaged in research. Additionally, Arctic technologies must be improved, and not only on paper: they should be properly tested in practice.

There is one more important thing, which is the need to harmonise administration across the region, including both management and legislation. It should no longer be the case when, due to gaps in legislation, production in one country is easier to carry out than in another. Standards should be the same across all of the Arctic.
All these elements together could promote the more environmentally responsible development of the region.

Do you believe it is possible to achieve full harmonization of environmental legislation between Arctic countries? What are the steps needed to achieve this?

Harmonising laws does not mean that all eight countries of the region will have the same laws or that the laws of, say, Sweden, will be in effect in Iceland, Denmark or Russia. Domestic legislation will prevail anyway, the more so as the absolute majority of environmental objectives are currently tackled at the national level. However, it is quite important to ensure the compatibility of laws and unity of approaches, particularly in technical areas or around such issues as environmental impact assessment.

www.rus-arc.ru

All eight Arctic countries should take part in the international regulation of conduct rules for the region, and in so doing, they should rely on both global and regional instruments. In other words, global and regional institutions of international law must work hand in hand, complimenting each other and reducing any possible legal gaps to a minimum.

Nor should we forget corporate law either. I mean, first and foremost, the internal corporate standards by companies which operate in the region. I would argue that many majors have a vested interest in seeing uniform rules of the game adopted across the Arctic, since with them in place they could achieve clarity and stability in their operations and significantly cut out any “underhand” competition.

Are you in favour of giving the Arctic the status of “common human heritage”?

I am not sure I fully understand the nature of this status. Besides, such status a priori cannot be given to the entire Arctic given the sovereign rights of the eight regional countries there. The Arctic is undoubtedly the common heritage of mankind in the same way as is, for instance, the Amazon or certain sections of coral reefs. However, with regards to other options, including legal ones, all deserve a thorough discussion.

It should be stressed, however, that the Arctic is in fact of global value as it provides not only for the eight countries in the region but also for the entire Northern Hemisphere at the very least. Events happening in the Arctic affect a huge number of countries, and as a result many more countries have an interest in the region apart from the de facto local countries. In that respect, non-Arctic countries must be allowed to participate in deciding the fate of the region.

Interviewed by Nikolay Markotkin, RIAC Programme Manager.