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.