Although the European Union is not presently welcome in the Arctic Council, sooner or later it will establish its presence at the negotiation table, like China and Japan, and therefore needs to take on the necessary instruments. This was the view suggested by MEPs and experts, meeting on 2 September at a public hearing sponsored by the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) on ‘A sustainable EU policy for the High North’. Michael Gahler (EPP, Germany) will draft the conclusions in a report to be presented to the committee at the end of October.

As early as November 2008, the European Commission drew attention, in a communication entitled ‘The European Union and the Arctic region’ ⁽¹⁾, to the EU’s interests in this region and proposed guidelines for an EU policy for the Arctic. It identified three areas: protection and preservation of the Arctic in unison with its population; promotion of the sustainable use of resources; and a contribution to enhanced Arctic multilateral governance (see Europolitics4033). These same themes were at the heart of the debates on 2 September, illustrated by three studies commissioned by the EP committee: ‘The geopolitics of Arctic natural resources’ by Valur Ingimundarson, University of Iceland, Reykjavik; ‘Opening of new Arctic shipping routes’ by Arild Moe and Øystein Jensen, Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Oslo; and ‘Impact of EU policies on the High North – The case of climate policy and fisheries’ by Antje Neumann and Bettina Rudloff, German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Berlin.

MEPs voiced concerns about unregulated overexploitation of natural resources (in particular gas and oil), threats to the environment and the danger of seeing an appetite for resources lead to exacerbated tensions in the region, which has no major conflicts for now, and to the development of intense maritime traffic in areas with little frequentation until now. They also highlighted the need to give greater consideration to local populations (Lapps and Inuits) and the need for more information and scientific data on the region.

Most of these questions refer to governance. The EU, pointed out Jaime Reynolds on behalf of the European Commission (DG Environment), has always relied on the existing international framework, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the Arctic Council ⁽²⁾ and does not see the need for a new instrument. Some MEPs mentioned a possible ‘Arctic Treaty’ similar to the treaty that governs the Antarctic. This is neither necessary nor possible, said Reynolds, backed by Willy Østreng (Ocean Futures, Oslo) and Valur Ingimundarson. The Antarctic is an international zone, whereas the Arctic is governed by the law of the sea and principles of territoriality (exclusive economic zones and management of the continental shelf within the limit of 200 or 300 nautical miles) of the rim countries. However, the melting of the ice cap and access to new resources and navigable routes are heightening the region’s strategic importance. The Arctic Council has no binding powers and its recent management in a restricted group of five of its eight members - Canada, Russia, the United States, Denmark/Greenland and Norway – without any representation of indigenous peoples undermines its legitimacy. The EU, rejected by this body in 2009, will nevertheless re-apply. It considers that it has a rightful place in order to defend its economic interests and its access to the North-West Passage, as China and Japan will do on the Pacific side. The debate is just getting off the ground: MPs from the Nordic regions will continue it at the EP, from 13 to 15 September.

The EU considers that it has a rightful place on the Arctic Council
⁽¹⁾ COM(2008)763
⁽²⁾ Canada, Denmark, on behalf of Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States