International environmental cooperation in the Arctic Region
In
Login if you are already registered
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
PhD in Economics, Head of the Production Support Department at Gazpromneft-Sakhalin
Many states consider the Arctic a strategic region today due to its immense hydrocarbon reserves and an increasing role of the factors and conditions underpinning the political and energy security of the leading industrially-developed countries. Industrial development of the Arctic region entails an intensive exploitation of its mineral resources, transport development and biological resources production. Given a special vulnerability of the harsh Arctic nature, there is a need for international cooperation, analysis of and actions to conserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural habitat. This also necessitates development and implementation of a rational multi-product environmentally-balanced model of sustainable environmental management.
Many states consider the Arctic a strategic region today due to its immense hydrocarbon reserves and an increasing role of the factors and conditions underpinning the political and energy security of the leading industrially-developed countries. Industrial development of the Arctic region entails an intensive exploitation of its mineral resources, transport development and biological resources production. Given a special vulnerability of the harsh Arctic nature, there is a need for international cooperation, analysis of and actions to conserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural habitat. This also necessitates development and implementation of a rational multi-product environmentally-balanced model of sustainable environmental management.
Current status of the Arctic environment
The Arctic ecosystem is extremely sensitive to the anthropogenic impact demonstrating a very slow recovery after irrational interventions. The interest in the region’s environmental issues is very high for it offers unique prospects to the energy resources exploitation in spite of its harsh climate with extreme fluctuations of illumination and temperatures, short summers, snowy and icy winters and vast territories of permafrost. Some components of the regional flora and fauna have adapted to these conditions, becoming, however, in some cases, more sensitive to man’s activities.
The climatic and hydrological specifics of the Arctic Ocean’s waters – their depth, the flow rate and direction, the temperatures, salinity, water stratification, the river runoff and the global water balance – contribute to a significant dilution of the contaminated run-offs and intense precipitation of hazardous substances preserved in the marine ecosystems for a long time. In addition, the contaminants coming to the Arctic from Western Europe bring along the atmospheric masses and the Gulf Stream.
Studies have demonstrated that the Arctic Region may have a significant impact on global warming. The Siberian peat bogs, formed about 11 thousand years ago after the glacier period, emit methane continually which is either held by the permafrost or gets deposited in it as methane hydrates (in a solid ice-like form) and upon melting goes to the atmosphere. The joint studies by the Tomsk University and the University of Oxford have revealed that the methane emissions have accelerated over the last few years. The release of the captive methane may, of course, take hundreds of years, however, it produces the green house effect 21 times as high as that of carbon dioxide. Therefore, the methane from the Siberian bogs will affect the global warming as much as 10-25% of the carbon dioxide the entire global power generation system emits today.
The climate change in the Western areas of the Arctic may lead to increasing numbers of icebergs practically non-existent in the Barents Sea today meaning that a special system of their monitoring will need to be set up to exploit the hydrocarbon deposits in Russia’s Arctic continental shelf.
Studies conducted in recent years, show that the glacier areas have kept shrinking as a result of global warming. According to the data by the UK Met Office, the areas covered with ice in the Arctic Ocean have shrunk by 20% since the 1950s till today, while the ice thickness has dwindled by 40% since 1970. According to the scholars, the ice cap in the North Pole may disappear already in 80 years. According to US researchers, the glaciers are today disappearing at a rate of 8% within 10 years. Should this trend continue, no ice may be left in the Arctic Region already in the summer of 2060.
A potential increase of an average atmospheric temperature by 3-4%C by 2050, will lead to 12-15% shrinkage of the permafrost area with its south boundary shifting, in Russia, 150-200 km to the north-east. The summer thawing depth may increase by 20-30% prompting potential multiple deformations of the surface structures and facilities – oil and gas pipelines, hydro power stations, towns and villages, automobile roads and railways, airfields and ports. Overall, this will affect the durability of buildings with their repair-free periods shrinking by half by 2015. According to available estimates, more than one out of the four 4-storey buildings constructed in the 1950-1970s in Yakutsk, Vorkuta and Tiksi may become uninhabitable already in the next 10-20 years with their share to rise later (for example, in Yakutsk) to 80% [1].
Environmental contamination of the Russian Arctic started already in the 1970s with the mastering of the Northern Sea Route when the ports became bases for the region’s development. The Arctic environment has also suffered from the nuclear weapons tests in the Novaya Zemlya Archipelago, Siberia’s chemical plants, the activities of the Northern Fleet of the Russian Navy and the ice-breaker fleet of the Murmansk Shipping Company.
Unlike Canada exploiting the natural resources in its Northern regions by a rotating scheme from the start, the USSR’s policy was to populate the resource-rich areas on a permanent basis. Apart from the scorched areas around the towns and combines, the Russian Arctic Region has significantly suffered from litter resulting from the activities of the research and geological missions and military facilities. Given the low temperatures, the local nature will not be able to process this litter even for hundreds of years.
The Barents Sea and the Kara Sea have especially suffered in this respect, for there are huge ‘reserves’ of toxic and radioactive waste on their sea beds and re-cycling of such wastes is an issue that may take many years to resolve.
The post-reform period of Russia’s economic development has significantly affected the infrastructure potential of the Arctic Region which desperately needs modernisation based on state-of-the art technologies. Continued intensive exploitation of the sub-Arctic regional infrastructure without any modernisation whatsoever has led to further deterioration of the environmental situation with many islands and ports turned into large-scale dumping grounds of litter and waste from economic activity. To address this challenge, there should be a coordinated federal programme uniting the government and private businesses in a private-public partnership.
With the population of the Arctic accounting today for 1% of the country’s total, the region’s output is nearly 11% of Russia’s national product and 22% its of total exports. The region boasts a diversified social and manufacturing infrastructure primarily in raw materials as well as the military – industrial and transport sectors (The Northern Sea Routes – NSR).
There are no alternatives to most core products manufactured in the North in terms of their potential production in other regions of the country or importation. Virtually not a single sector of Russia’s economy or social sphere can function without the fuel, energy or other resources excavated or produced in its Northern regions. At the same time, a lot of issues need to be resolved to develop the Arctic deposits including substantial investment, new production and transport technologies to guarantee environmental preservation of the Polar region.
The Russian Arctic consists of 27 regions - 11 shore and 16 sea and coastal zones – called impact ones. The main four trouble spots are the Murmansk Oblast with 10% of the aggregate contaminant emissions, the Norilsk region (over 30%), the areas of oil and gas deposit development in Western Siberia (over 30%) and the Archangelsk Oblast highly contaminated by specific substances.
The adverse environmental processes in the above regions have already led to major transformations of the natural geochemical background, an atmospheric contamination, a degradation of the vegetation cover, soils and grounds as well as integration of harmful substances in the nutrition chains and a higher sickness rate among the population [2].
Re-cycling of industrial waste piling up around the plants is a most acute issue for the Arctic Region. The total of OAO Apatit’s wastes, annually dumping about 30 million tones alone, has reached nearly 400 million tonnes today [3].
The forthcoming development of the Arctic continental shelf boasting a huge energy potential will also be fraught with significant risks (See Table 1).
Table 1. Environmental risks related to production of hydrocarbon resources in the Arctic continental shelf
| Activity type/Environmental risk | Potential impact |
|---|---|
| Well drilling | Contaminant emissions to the atmosphere and the sea, deposit water disposal |
| Oil outflows | Major blowouts of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons from well drilling |
| Petroleum associated gas (PAG) flaring | Formation of thin unstable film on the sea surface around oil rigs |
| Green house gas emissions | Climate change resulting from large-volume emissions of GHG - СО2, СН4 and NOx |
| Emissions of nmVOCv (non-methane volatile organic compounds) due to crude oil evaporation or transshipment at terminals | Increasing ozone concentrations in the ground level may adversely affect people’s health, vegetation and structures |
| Long exploitation of natural deposit fields | The region becomes an increasingly higher seismic hazard due to subsidence in huge territories |
| Hydrocarbons tanker transportation | Spills in handling and bunkering operations and accidents |
| Pipeline transportation | Accidental spills |
| Sea rig accidents | Environmental disasters with human fatalities, contamination of sea water areas and destruction of the marine and coastal flora and fauna |
Even insignificants hydrocarbon leakages, especially on the continental shelf, covered with thick ice most of the year, will result in irreparable environmental damage and entail huge amounts in damages. The 1989 wreck of Exxon Valdez oil tanker off the coats of Alaska turned into one of the major environmental disasters at sea in world history. The spill led to in a dramatic shrinkage of fish - including humpback salmon - population with at least thirty years needed to reclaim some areas of the Arctic sensitive nature. The court ruled Exxon to pay US$ 4.5 billion in compensation.
Accidents at sea have a common specific feature for emergency processes linked to hydrocarbon blowouts and combustion, given very a limited space between the equipment pieces, develop very rapidly.
World history of continental shelf development (including that in the northern seas) has witnessed a number of accidents with devastating consequences caused by insufficient attention to security threats identification and mitigation.
Major accidents on drilling ships and platforms of various types (semi-submersible, submersible, mobile and stationary) between 1979 and 2005 are listed below (Table 2 [4]).
Table 2.Major accidents at sea drilling ships and platforms between 1979 and 2005
| Date and place | Accident type | Accident’s brief description and main causes | Fatalities and damage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25.11.1979 The Yellow Sea | Oil rig sinking | A drilling platform was caught in a storm (gale force 10) during a towing operation and after the pumping room was flooded, the platform capsized and sank. | 72 fatalities, damage – the rig’s price |
| 02.10.1980 The Red Sea | Uncontrolled oil blowout | Drilling at Ron Tappmayer platform led to an uncontrolled oil blowout followed by an explosion. The result - spillage of app. 150 thousand tonnes of oil and discharge of bags with loose agents to the sea. | 19 fatalities, environmental damage up to US$800 thousand |
| 15.02.1982 The coast of Canada | Oil rig sinking | The Ocean Ranger jack-up drilling rig capsized and sank due to the faulty design, the crew’s unpreparedness and wrong actions as well as insufficient number of life saving equipment. | 84 fatalities, damage – the rig’s price |
| 27.03.1983 The North Sea | An explosion, a fire and the rig’s destruction | The destruction of the Alexander Kielland platform legs was followed by an explosion and a fire. Lives were lost due to the damage to the life saving equipment. | 123 fatalities, damage – the rig’s price |
| 25.10.1983 The China Sea | Oil rig sinking | The Glomar Java Sea drilling ship broke mooring in a tropical typhoon, capsized and sank. | 81 fatalities, damage – the rig’s price |
| 06.07.1988 The North Sea | An explosion, a fire and the rig’s destruction | The Piper Alpha oil rig operating in a gas field, suffered a series of explosions leading to a blaze destroying the platform. | 164 fatalities, damage – the rig’s price |
| 15.03.2001 The Atlantic, Brazilian coast | An explosion and the rig’s destruction | A series of explosions damaged the starboard aft column of the Petrobras drilling rig and it sank with 125 thousand tonnes of oil spilled into the sea. | 10 fatalities |
| 27.07.2005 The Indian Ocean | Collision with a ship, fire and the rig’s destruction | Heavy tides pushed the nearby support vessel into the platform. | 49 fatalities |
| 22.04.2010 The Gulf of Mexico | An explosion and fire on the rig | The Deep Water drilling rig, managed by British Petroleum, sank off the Louisiana coast. causing a major environmental disaster. The states of Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi suffered substantial damage. | Damage about US$40 bln |
Obviously, should such accidents occur in the Arctic Region, they may lead to irreparable consequences due to the remoteness of the work sites and the ecosystem’s sensitivity.
Legal basis of international cooperation in the Arctic Region
The collapse of the tanker «Exxon Valdez»,
Alaska, 1989
It is essential to study the Arctic Region as an important component of the global climate system linked to its other elements – transfer of heat, moisture, salt and water due to the circulation of the atmosphere and the ocean. Many challenges facing the Arctic Region are of a circum-polar nature, so international cooperation should play a major role in addressing them with such efforts starting to actively develop in the early 1990s.
In 1989, Finland, Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the USSR and the USA launched joint efforts in the region’s environmental protection. In June 1991, Rovaniemi (Finland) hosted a Conference of Ministers for the Environment of the 8 signatory countries to the Rovaniemi Declaration on the Protection of the Arctic Environment (The Rovaniemi Declaration) and adopted the Arctic Environment Protection Strategy (AEPS) aiming, mainly, to identify, contain and eventually ban the region’s contamination.
Numerous and heterogeneous - in terms of their functions, powers and nature of activity - international organisations participate in the Arctic policy and the four most influential among them are the Arctic Council (AC), the Barents Euro-Arctic Council (BEAC), the European Union and NATO [5].
The Arctic Council set up in September 1996 in Ottawa (Canada), focuses on the Arctic environmental protection, ensuring sustainable development as a means to enhance the economic, social and cultural wellbeing of the peoples of the North. It holds ministerial-level meetings once a year.
According to experts, the international organisations format offers Russia significant opportunities in developing the Arctic cooperation ranging from the environmental issues to search and rescue operations. The only exception may be NATO with its focus, from a formal point of view, on the impact of global warming and human activity in the Artic and risks of environmental and technogenic disasters. In addition, one of top priorities for NATO’s presence in the Arctic region is global fight for energy resources.
The Arctic Council offers the most favourable cooperation prospects while the BEAC, as an international institution, is also a useful channel facilitating improved multilateral cooperation and development of Russia’s Arctic region.
Forms of international cooperation to ensure environmental security
Transboundary exercise "Barents Rescue", 2011
One of international cooperation examples in the Arctic Regions is the Barents Rescue exercise held twice a year at the BEAC initiative in each of the four countries of the Barents region by rotation.
The first exercise hosted by Sweden in 2001 involved forces from the four countries that practiced elimination of a nuclear facility disaster. 2005 and 2007 witnessed the exercise held consecutively in Norway and Finland. In 2009, the three-day exercise took place in the Murmansk Oblast where the rescuers practiced five various scenarios, including actions to be taken in radioactive environmental contamination and petroleum products spill. A large-scale exercise of the Barents Rescue services involving over 2000 rescuers was again held in Sweden in September 2011.
One more example of cooperation in the Arctic environmental protection and safety is the creation of the Centre for Navigation Studies in Vardo (Norway), already a host to the Vessel Traffic Centre (VTS) for North Norway. The vessel traffic centre run by the coastal guard monitors and guides shipping traffic along the coast of North Norway and plays a key role in Norway’s maritime safety cooperation with Russia and contingency planning for combating oil spills. The two countries have signed an agreement to establish a joint Norwegian-Russian vessel traffic management information system, Barents VTMIS.
In the 2000s, the working group on the humanitarian aspects of radiation and environmental safety, disposal of nuclear submarines, handling of radioactive wastes and spent nuclear fuel was active in the Murmansk Oblast. This group was set up drawing, on the experience of the contract between the Swedish International Project for Nuclear Safety (SIP, currently the Swedish Inspectorate for Nuclear safety – SKI-ICP), the government of the Murmansk Oblast and SevRAO- the federal government unitary enterprise under the project in support of the Public Relations Programme on the Andreev Bay.
The project covered a number of joint actions – shooting a film on remediation of the SevRAO facility in the Andreev Bay, a sociological survey followed by workshops and designing a public relations programme on the issue.
Creation of an information centre at the Lenin ice breaker in Murmansk was a major step to enhance environmental safety in the Arctic Region. It gets information on all radiation facilities on the territory of the Murmansk Oblast and disseminates data on the radiological environment in the region. The Center was set up with the participation of Dutch experts with €1.3 million allocated for the purpose by the European Union in 2006.
An efficient marine resource management framework may become an instrument of Arctic international cooperation designed to enhance the environmental safety. Formation of such a framework is currently viewed as a key pre-condition for a successful development of all countries with coastlines.
Continental shelf seas – being natural formations – are organised in a systemic way. However, the economic activity in these areas - its individual sectors, like transport, fisheries, oil and gas production, etc. – do not form a single systemic whole. Their various links and interactions do not - in their totality – interface in a way conducive to obtaining an integrated focused and beneficial result. In other words, an integrated nature of the Arctic economic activity is not a result yet, but merely a process to develop the sea expanses and resources. It is no coincidence, that there are concepts of a fisheries complex, a ship repair complex and an oil and gas complex, etc.
An integrated management methodology entails designing a unified strategy and an action programme for all sectors (nature users) with the environmental principles as key criteria for assessment of such activity.
A concept of integrated marine management – unlike a conventional management activity – is based on managing everything and everybody relating to a specific marine ecosystem and its coastal area. Integrated marine management should, at the same time, envisage feedback channels and mechanisms for proactive measures to prevent adverse environmental impact with a view to ensure efficient support to the activities of various nature users in the Arctic. Works by Academician G. Matishov provide the most comprehensive ideas on integrated environmental management [6].
A basic integrated environmental management scheme is presented below (Drawing 1).
Drawing 1. Basic integrated environmental management scheme
Integrated management does not imply influencing the natural processes but man’s activity which should be organised in a way harmonious with the environment.
* * *
It is critical to realise that the forthcoming expansion of hydrocarbon exploration and production and enhanced military presence in the Arctic will result in mounting pressure on the region’s ecosystems. With efficient mechanisms to fight for environmental cleanliness absent, this may lead to a further aggravation of the environmental issues, especially in the continental shelf of the Barents, the Pechora and the Kara seas. In view of the grave nature of the environmental issues, the government should put more focus on addressing them.
Achievement of integrated environmental management will enable to preserve the fragile ecosystem of the Arctic Region destined to guarantee the mankind’s energy security for decades to come.
Obviously, this issue can be addressed only through efficient international cooperation and full-fledged consolidation of political and economic resources.
References
A number of international legal documents relating to oil and gas production at sea are currently in effect, including:
- The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (1969);
- The International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation of Oil Damage Pollution (1971);
- The Protocol of 1992 to Amend the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969 and the Protocol of 1992 to Amend the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation of Oil Damage Pollution (1971);
- The London Convention on the prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter (1972);
- The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) 1973/1978;
- The Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage Resulting from Exploration and Exploitation of Seabed Mineral resources (1976);
- The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982);
- The International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (1990).
1. Кокорин А.О., Сафонов Г.В. Что будет после Киотского протокола? Международное соглашение об ограничении выбросов парниковых газов после 2012 г. М.: ЛЛЛ/Р России, СОР, 2007. С. 24.
2. Моргунов Б.А. Методология учета экологического фактора в процессе выработки стратегии устойчивого развития арктической зоны России. Автореферат диссертации на соискание ученой степени доктора географических наук. СПб., 2006.
3. Бекетов Н.В. Экологизация инвестиционной политики в Арктике // Проблемы современной экономики. 2002. № 1(5).
4. Лисанов М. и др. Аварийность на морских нефтегазовых объектах // Oil & Gas, 2010. № 5(39). С. 50.
5. Конышев В.Н., Сергунин А.А. Международные организации и сотрудничество в Арктике // Вестник международных организаций. 2011. № 3(34).
6. Матишов Г.Г., Никитин Б.А., Сочнее О.Я. Экологическая безопасность и мониторинг при освоении месторождений углеводородов на арктическом шельфе. М.: Газоил пресс, 2001.
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
