EU s Role IN THE ARCTIC

EU s Role IN THE ARCTIC

Cautionary note! The EU is extremely complex policy entity The Arctic is very heterogeneous policy environment Both are changing, and fast 1 + 1= even more complexity Another cautionary note: this presentation contains land stuff as well EU has in its Arctic policy, unavoidably, also confronted land issues

Story-line Trying to examine the preconditions for what the EU s role can be in the Arctic 1) Geography is important from the viewpoint of governance! Enlargement of the EU to the Baltic Sea as compared to the north Also the future geography of the Arctic when the sea ice recedes further Geographical presence of the EU provides the basis for analyzing the governance role of the EU in the Arctic 2) Geography also largely determines via which institutions the EU functions in the Arctic

Story-line These we can wittness in the evolving EU s Arctic policy from 2008 3) The idea in this presentation is to examine whether there has been institutional learning what we expected in a journal article done in 2010 in the EU Examples: whether the EU has learned of Arctic realities (northern resistance) 4) Conclusions on whether the EU has learned during the time of its evolving Arctic policy from 2008 onwards

1) Importance of geography I have too many times confronted in these Arctic seminars the observation that the EU is NOT an arctic actor because it does not have Arctic coastline. And it does not possess such a coastline, even if we Finns always remind the others of the lost possibility for that How has the EU progressed in its enlargement geographically to the Baltic Sea and the Arctic Ocean

Importance of geography Conclusions: The Baltic Sea has become almost an internal sea (with one big exception), and hence many EU regulations and policies apply directly there So the governance implications of geographical enlargement are very clear: EU directly regulates and governs many of the issues now in the Baltic Sea area Yet, the EU has confronted resistance in its path towards the north and the Arctic, even if the Nordic states would seem ideal member states of the EU No coastal line to the Arctic waters

Importance of geography Conclusions: Only S and F as MS s (note Norway s two rejections, Icelands likely rejection and Greenland s withdrawal (the only) and Svalbard was excluded from EEA Only Finland an Euro country, which is predicted to be an inner circle of the EU after the financial crisis

Importance of geography - future And here we look at the future of the EU s relationship to the Arctic when the sea ice recedes Commons areas High seas - fishing Deep sea-bed deep sea-mining Internal waters lots of navigational interests The recession of the sea ice will change the EU s interests in the Arctic

Note: The current period to the left, mid-century conditions under a modest climate scenario to the right. Red routes for moderately ice-strengthened ships; blue for ordinary vessels. Source: Stephenson, 2013

2) How the region is and will be governed? EU does not have and will likely not have (in the foreseeable future) direct governance influence in the Arctic Its geographical role largely determines where it can influence and in what ways: Core region (northern parts of F and S) Larger core region (EEA) European Arctic, with neighbourhoods and partnerships (BEAR, ND, bilateral agreements) And the whole Arctic It has been mainly the last that has now been addressed via the EU s larger Arctic policy!

2) How the region is and will be governed? For the EU, the institutional arrangements of the whole pan-arctic region are important Arctic Ocean coastal states have convened 2008 and 2010 despite the criticism and now they have commenced Arctic fisheries discussions This is not a good scenario from the EU viewpoint There is no representation from the EU whereas in the Arctic Council, there are 3 MS s, most of the observer states are MS s, etc. And think of the sea ice receding

3) Has the EU been able to learn in implemeintg its evolving Arctic policy? We concluded in a piece published in Polar Record in 2011 that gradual institutional learning will probably improve the quality of its input in the Arctic governance and its understanding of the policy dynamics prevailing in the Arctic and the social and environmental realities in the region. This was based on the early policy papers of the EU and the difficulties between the EU and the Arctic over the seals products Here the intention is to examine whether the EU has been able to learn of these realities in its Arctic-relevant policy-making via examples

Even the titles of the policy show the sensitivity of the EU Old 2008 New 2012 progress report Protecting and preserving the Arctic in unison with its population Promoting sustainable use of resources Contributing to enhanced Arctic multilateral governance Support research and channel knowledge to address the challenges of environmental and climate changes in the Arctic; Act with responsibility to contribute to ensuring economic development in the Arctic is based on sustainable use of resources and environmental expertise; Intensify its constructive engagement and dialogue with Arctic States, indigenous peoples and other partners

Is there a need for security and defence policy from the part of the EU part I EU Arctic Climate change and international security 2008 Arctic Communication 2008: the Commission and the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy have pointed out that environmental changes are altering the geostrategic dynamics of the Arctic with potential consequences for international stability and European security interests calling for the development of an EU Arctic policy 2008 saw a lot of arguments about militarization of the Arctic, scramble for resources, etc Traditional security implications

Is there a need for security and defence policy from the part of the EU part II EU 2013: No real need identified, although the EU s foreign minister did make an argument that the northern sea routes have to be kept in mind in the holistic security policy of the EU Arctic There is broad consensus among all Arctic actors that there are no traditional security threats in the region

Is there a need for a treaty protecting the Arctic environment? EU 2008 EU s evolving Arctic policy Parliament s 2008 Arctic resolution, with its idea to govern the Arctic like the Antarctica EU Parliaments action, which tends to be misunderstood by the northerners as EU action 2008 Communication, slight criticism of Arctic governance From thereon, all the institutions have gradually accepted the current governance framework of the Arctic And now the EU can show how strong it is in multi-level environmental protection governance that pertains to the Arctic (especially the CC) And responsibility AFPA

What can the EU do with the exploitation of Arctic hydrocarbons? 2008 Communication 2012 roadmap Support for the exploitation of Arctic hydrocarbon resources should be provided in full respect of strict environmental standards taking into account the particular vulnerability of the Arctic. Proposals for action : Encourage the observance of the highest possible environmental standards. Press for the introduction of binding international standards, building inter alia on the guidelines of the Arctic Council and relevant international conventions. 2012: does not even mention the safety aspects of offshore oil and gas Refers to EU Energy Policy: Engaging with Partners beyond Our Borders, which then encourages best practises and does not single out the Arctic

What can the EU do with the exploitation of Arctic hydrocarbons?? EU Parliament - preliminary Moratorium negotiations idea endorsed in the environment committee of the proposal Did not survive Final directive DIRECTIVE 2013/30/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 12 June 2013 on safety of offshore oil and gas operations and amending Directive 2004/35/EC The Arctic waters are a neighbouring marine environment of particular importance for the Union, and play an important role in mitigating climate change. The serious environmental concerns relating to the Arctic waters require special attention to ensure the environmental protection of the Arctic in relation to any offshore oil and gas operation, including exploration

Indigenous policy 2008 2012 Expressed its commitment to learn of this policy area Especially with dialogues with PP s Already the third leg of the roadmap is telling: Intensify its constructive engagement and dialogue with Arctic States, indigenous peoples and other partners. Here the EU was already expressing commitment to the UNDRIP as a basis for the work with IP s And that they are now thinking of some institutional presence for the Arctic indigenous peoples in Brussels

Marine mammals EU Arctic EU s marine mammals policy has been fairly consistently based on animal welfare Seals ban Searching for common position in the IWC (Denmark blocking it) Reality of the Arctic is that most constituencies submit to the optimal utilization ideology NAMMCO (N, I, FI, GR + observers C and Russia) Together with aboriginal whaling rights in the Arctic, within the IWC

Marine mammals sensitization of the EU It would seem that the EU has become more aware of the implications of its policy actions In the most recent CITES conference, The US introduced the proposal to transfer the polar bear from Appendix II to Appendix I noting the projected decline in polar bear habitat of 66% by 2050, and pointing to climate change, not trade, as the main threat to the species, he said an Appendix I listing is not the solution, but is part of the solution for the protection of the species

Marine mammals sensitization of the EU Greenland (Denmark), Nunavut (Canada) expressed serious reservations: biological criteria has not been met ITK (Canada s national inuit organization) also opposed heavily EU comes up with a compromise solution, supported by Greenland and Norway, to maintain in Appendix II

4) Conclusions on EU s role in the Arctic Many a times abstract discussions focus on irrelevant issues, such as whether the EU has a coastline to the AO We have to go beyond this discussion, simply because the EU so clearly is an Arctic actor: Making policies having an impact in the Arctic Influencing the Arctic as a major consumer region Bein part of many relevant Arctic institutions

Conclusions on EU s role in the Arctic The more relevant question for the EU is how to become aware of the possible side-effects of its policy-making on the Arctic (which does not mean that it would need to change those policies, because its policies draw from larger constituencies) By becoming aware, one can at least make conscious policies, e.g. The northerners seem to have different perceptions especially of animal welfare, where the EU is accused of being hypocritical

Conclusions on EU s role in the Arctic In the most recent progress report, the EU has seemingly fine-tuned its policy to support stronger involvement with the region: It seems obvious that there has been a lot of learning from the EU side to the realities of the Arctic, which contributes to correcting misunderstandings at both sides Now the EU focuses on those areas where it enjoys street credibility and, perhaps, is better understood by the northerners (UN Declaration!!!) It is to be hoped that there is not too many expecting EU to act as a unitary actor, which it rarely is also the northerners would need to learn what the EU is It is a two-way relationship