Search, Rescue and Environmental Cleanup

Finally, there are the issues of search, rescue and environmental cleanup capacities. Unfortunately, as the Exxon Valdez disaster demonstrates, it is difficult to clean up even a small environmental disaster. In the Arctic, where there are few deepwater ports and severe weather as well as remoteness make operating conditions at best difficult, the scope of disaster cleanup tasks is magnified multifold. Indeed, as the recent wreck of the Chinese carrier Shen Neng 1 on the Great Barrier Reef demonstrates, officials and salvage crews are often helpless to do more than try and minimize the damage after an oil spill or other disaster has occurred.  Preventive measures, therefore, such as required regional accredited pilots, strong construction standards, a comprehensive ice regime, good vessel monitoring and high levels of precaution in granting vessel clearance, are likely to provide the best insurance again disaster per dollar spent. The Arctic nations should, however, investigate the creation of a joint disaster response facility staffed by aircraft and waterborne vessels with cleanup capabilities. To ensure quick response time, each nation and shippers themselves should be required to pay into a disaster relief pool on a fee basis (annually for nations) that would be used to cover operating expenses in the event of disasters.

Search and rescue operations, on the other hand, can be handled through the enhancement of current operations. In particular, search and rescue operations should focus on tourist vessels, commercial and non-commercial, since operators of cargo vessels, oil platforms and other non-tourist commercial vessels frequently remain on site even after a disaster occurs. Therefore, the Arctic Treaty should identify key strategic locations for northern Coast Guard bases. In countries without a strong Coast Guard infrastructure, such as Iceland, the eight nations should work together to build an operational search and rescue base. Taken together, the national bases should have the scope to cover disasters across the Arctic region. However, if a large tourist vessel is stricken in the region even a fleet of rescue helicopters would be unlikely to be able to offload all passengers efficiently. In light of this, Arctic vessels should be required to carry extra emergency supplies, including drysuits for all passengers, to ensure that passengers have the ability to survive an extended rescue operation. Cost-sharing for search and rescue operations will be a matter of contention, with the most likely compromise a system in which nations, the rescued and their insurers all bear some portion of the costs. Nonetheless, if waterborne activity within the Arctic is to increase then sophisticated search and rescue capabilities will be necessary. Clearly, commercial aircraft operation over the open waters of the Arctic would pose another issue entirely, but the infrastructure for such a system would be largely similar.

Such initiatives in the Arctic might be politically unfavorable because of their short-term costs. However, in the long term these policies represent a small investment with the potential for dramatic savings. Initiatives to keep the Arctic a secure and conflict-free zone will save money by reducing national defense budgets for Arctic nations. Making the region a no go, no dump zone for military nuclear operation will save money on future clean-ups and help to preserve the ecological health of the region as well as the health of its human inhabitants. Funding future scientific research will allow global leaders to make more complete, information-based policy decisions. Strict enforcement of shipping regulations such as the hull and ice regimes will reduce the chance of disaster, thus serving as cheap risk insurance. Strong fisheries, farming and forestry management policies will ensure that future generations are able to draw on regional resources, thus promoting intergenerational wealth transfers and long-term economic stability. In addition, an effective negotiated multilateral environmental regime in the Arctic would send a message to the world that the Arctic nations are committed to capitalizing on their one chance to protect this valuable ecological region.

Tourism

Higher tourist traffic will be a two-edged sword for the Arctic regions. With the new money tourism brings into the region will come environmental hazards and other concerns. Tourist boats should be required to adhere to the same hull and ice regimes as all other vessels. In addition, tourist vessels should pay into a disaster relief fund annually to help offset the cost of any sort of search and rescue or environmental cleanup operation that might stem from their presence. Tourism should be strictly limited to a certain number of vessels or passengers per year, with the quota perhaps increasingly annually from a small base to an eventual cap in order to develop best practices through experience. This would help to ensure that the region is not overdeveloped and does not become overly dependent on tourism revenues.

Prohibiting all Hazardous Waste Disposal

Beyond nuclear waste, hazardous waste import and disposal in the Arctic are critical matters. Restrictions on the substance classes permitted to be dumped in the deep Arctic waters would help to provide a legal basis for action against parties who are not living up to their obligations. Ships’ ballast water should not be allowed to be changed in the Arctic, since this could introduce alien species to the region. In addition, no open disposal of trash or sewage, including through the use of a macerator, should be allowed. This would send a message that the Arctic nations recognize that the world’s other oceans have been mismanaged and that they are determined not to make the same mistakes in the Arctic.

Prohibiting Nuclear Pollution

The Arctic is home to the world’s two major nuclear powers – the United States and Russia – neither of whom has a strong history of best practices in the region with regards to nuclear disposal. It is essential that the Arctic is made a nuclear “no dump” zone, with strict and readily enforceable penalties for a violating nation, perhaps through an escrow account. As the Soviet submarine and icebreaking fleet ages, this becomes increasingly important – indeed, the Soviets are currently capable of projecting only one submarine at a time at sea. The Soviets might request financial assistance to better dispose of nuclear waste. United States vessels should be subject to the same standards as Russian vessels. An independent non-governmental monitoring organization should be given full access to nuclear ships in order to assure that best practices are followed.

Indigenous Peoples

With approximately four million inhabitants and a dearth of economic activity, the Arctic nations could help the indigenous tribes they have so often exploited by providing further economic opportunities for them. These peoples’ regional memory is unsurpassed and of tangible value to any regime aimed at sustainable development of the region. Funding indigenous education can raise awareness about Arctic issues and help to generate job growth in native economies. Indigenous tribes, particularly in Greenland, could thus position themselves to receive a piece of the growing regional economic pie. An Arctic Treaty can also mandate that some of the jobs created in the region go to the people who have historically lived there.

Education

An Arctic Treaty would also serve a variety of educational purposes. First, the treaty body could maintain a website where all Arctic-related news and policies are centrally disseminated. Through increased transparency and better communication of policies, the Arctic nations could breed cooperation rather than distrust. Increased dialogue among nations, already occurring within the Arctic Council, would promote regional security and likely dissuade nations from taking renegade policy stances. In turn, this would serve to keep the public better informed and more aware of current events and policy stances in the Arctic region.

Fisheries Management

Fisheries management under an Arctic regime would become an international matter, with a comprehensive legal regime that protects all fisheries in the area (there are currently exploitable gaps in the protected areas). This would discourage nations from treading on other nations’ fishing grounds. It would also reduce coordination problems, eliminating situations in which one nation establishes a sustainable quota but its neighbor does not and the fishery as a whole is overfished. Regional rather than national data on total fish catches would also allow experts to better monitor fishery health and to adjust fisheries policy accordingly. High seas fisheries management, as evidenced by overfished North Atlantic fishing grounds, has traditionally been highly ineffectual; in the Arctic, creating an international fisheries management regime would promote dialogue and reduce national tensions while simultaneously facilitating stronger overall fisheries practices.

Protecting Endangered Species

What would be the regime’s role in protecting Arctic waters and the associated ecosystems? First, an Arctic regime should incorporate protection for offshore feeding areas of polar bears and other endangered species. Current legal regimes fail to provide this protection. The Arctic regime can comfortably draw on precedent in the Antarctic by establishing specially protected areas in ecologically sensitive regions. Such legislative protection would be an acknowledgement by the Arctic nations that the entire food chain needs to be subject to management practices.

Promoting Sound Environmental Land Use

Since domestic regimes apply to land areas in the Arctic region, any cooperative Arctic regime must focus on water rather than land. However, the Arctic states could jointly recommend beneficial domestic land-based policies. For instance, they might seek to curtail over-foresting and protect reindeer grazing grounds that are important to native peoples. In addition, restrictions on pesticide use in the region would be an important step towards minimizing the environmental impact of increased Arctic farming.

Uniformity of Ice Charting

To minimize risk of operator error and facilitate ease of use, ice charts should be disseminated under a uniform system, rather than under the several different graphic schemes presently employed.  This would ensure that captains can interpret ice charts across regions.  To minimize switching costs, the charts should be published under both current and integrated systems for a number of years with new captains instructed in the integrated system and old captains still able to check old system ice charts that match their already acquired knowledge.