As the Arctic ice melts and technologies of production of increasingly scarce natural resources develop, this northernmost region of the globe acquires greater significance for the world economy and policy-making. The European Union considers itself to be directly involved in the Arctic policy due to the Arctic status of its member states -- Denmark, Finland and Sweden.
With its limited opportunities to influence the processes occurring in the Arctic, the European Union, as in many other areas, tries to play the role of a regulatory force - by proposing standards and behavior patterns that can be adopted by all the present actors in the region.
As the Arctic ice melts and technologies of production of increasingly scarce natural resources develop, this northernmost region of the globe acquires greater significance for the world economy and policy-making. The European Union considers itself to be directly involved in the Arctic policy due to the Arctic status of its member states - Denmark, Finland and Sweden.
Expansion is unlikely
Denmark belongs to Arctic countries as its sovereignty extends to Greenland which as a matter of fact is not part of the EU. Therefore the EU does not have direct access to the Arctic coast. The Danes are not among the supporters of greater European integration and do not seek to entrust its Arctic potential to the European Union. With the start of intensive exploitation of Greenland’s Arctic resource base, Greenland may opt for complete independence from Denmark. The population of Greenland is small (57,600 people), and it is unlikely to seek EU membership, preferring like Norway to continue its cooperation with the EU in certain areas. In Norway itself the support for the idea of joining the EU is minimal - 12.6% of those polled by the end of 2011. A similar trend can be observed in Iceland which has officially applied for membership in the European Union. A small part of Iceland’s territory lies beyond the Arctic Circle. Finland and Sweden – members of the European Union – also have a small Arctic territory. The latter due to their geographical position cannot qualify for the participation in political decision-making with respect to the development of the Arctic shelf and ocean transport routes, a matter of common interest. Aware of the importance of the Arctic, the EU finds itself almost completely excluded from the "narrow circle" which discusses and solves the region’s problems.
Ambitions and capabilities
With its limited opportunities to influence the processes occurring in the Arctic, the European Union, as in many other areas, tries to play the role of a regulatory force -- by proposing standards and behavior patterns that can be adopted by all the present actors in the region. At the end of 2008 the European Commission formulated three most important EU objectives in the Arctic:
- Preservation of the environment and indigenous population;
- Environment-friendly resource production;
- Participation in the multilateral management of the region’s affairs.
A year later the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the European Union approved this document.
These goals may seem ambitious only if one does not take into account the above mentioned limited political instruments available to the EU. In practice it all boils down to monitoring, research and discussions, many of which are designed to persuade the Arctic countries of the need to maintain higher environmental standards, even to the detriment of their economic activity. It is not surprising that the countries of the region are not overly enthusiastic about these claims although they perceive them as the norm and do not refuse to participate in the dialogue initiated by the European Union.
In January 2011 the European Parliament in its resolution called for more active EU Arctic policy, but its voice in such matters is merely advisory.
Business acumen
For the Brussels bureaucracy only the very top of the iceberg of Arctic policy is accessible, while for the EU business much brighter prospects open up in the region.
The EU has a unique potential in maritime trade. In its harbors start and end many important trade routes; its companies are responsible for about 39% of the total volume of container shipping in the world. Improved conditions for navigation in the Arctic can be successfully used to improve the efficiency of the EU merchant fleet.
Production of natural resources in harsh arctic conditions requires the use of unique new technologies available only to the industry leaders, with many of them in the European Union. Already the French “Total” as one of the key stakeholders has joined Norwegian “Statoil” in the first project paving the way for further development of the Arctic shelf – the Shtokman field, while the German “Wintershall” is prepared to render technical assistance.
Maximizing the potential of the EU business structures in the Arctic may be achieved only if the region is open for the economic activity of non-members of the European Union. On the whole this process should be profitable for the Arctic States but in all probability they will try to retain certain regulatory instruments. It is likely that with that end in view environmental arguments will be used on whose importance the EU makes such a strong emphasis.
Phantom of disaster
Periodically aired concerns that the Arctic could become a region of armed rivalry are not shared by influential Europeans. On the contrary, according to the dominant view among European politicians it is necessary to give serious attention to the causes and potential consequences of the global environmental catastrophe – disastrous European climate change caused, among other reasons, by the ongoing processes in the Arctic. The northern region is turning into a laboratory enabling deeper insight into complex climatic phenomena.
It is primarily the countries of the European Union which have to take measures based on the results of research as they are responsible for at least half of the carbon emissions found in the arctic atmosphere. Goals set by the EU to conserve the unique natural environment are not so much related to the scope and methods of work in the Arctic as to increased energy efficiency and renewable energy development in densely populated industrialized countries of Europe. Such an approach should also provide a more gradual increase in demand for Arctic resources since it is expected that modernized economies of the EU countries will learn to get better results with fewer resources.
Indeed, environmental factors are important; however the search for an optimal balance between the Arctic as a preserved area and ruthless exploitation remains a political issue that has no single solution.
Emphasis on interaction
The EU "Arctic Policy" is rather sketchy. Lack of coordination in this area could be a feature of this policy for some time to come. However, circumstances will push the EU towards greater cohesion. Most EU member states individually would not concern themselves with their presence in the Arctic and in fact at this point of time it is not a problem for them. As the northern region develops "lost profits" for those outside will increase. Given the free movement of labor within the European Union the EU citizens will more and more often find jobs in companies that are interested in working in the Arctic. Hypothetical loss of Arctic status by Denmark may paradoxically strengthen the EU Arctic policy. Should this happen the present divergence of interests within the EU would level off.
The EU Arctic policy inevitably involves negotiations with Russia and Norway. Russian and Norwegian diplomats may opt for a more traditional approach, i.e. reaching agreements with individual EU member countries and their companies. However, ultimately the existence of an additional level for making agreements, at which the EU countries would delegate their authority to the European Commission, might be beneficial both to the European Union and Arctic powers. This approach expands the field of mutually acceptable package solutions where a concession in one area may be due to the gain in another.
The ability to present a single front at negotiations is not the only characteristic feature of the EU in its relations with the outside world. The EU neighboring countries have to take into account the development of the EU legislation, while some countries, such as Norway and Iceland which are members of the European Economic Area, undertake to comply with a substantial part of regulations adopted by the EU. According to the study conducted on the initiative of the European Parliament, among these documents there are many directly or indirectly affecting the Arctic region. Norway and Iceland remain outside the EU as a decision-making center forming at the same time a part of legal and economic space established by the European Union.
So far Russia and the EU have been divided by much higher economic and political barriers. The European Union was pleased with the settlement of the territorial dispute between Russia and Norway in 2010, which for many years remained a potential source of tension and poisoned bilateral Russian-Norwegian relations. At this point of time the EU political institutions are only assessing the pros and cons of their cooperation with Russia in the Arctic region. Attracting business from the EU countries to the implementation of joint projects in the Arctic would allow Russia to lay the foundation for mutually beneficial trust based relations with the EU in the future.
Extreme Arctic conditions have an unexpectedly strong influence on the system of political coordinates. Non-EU countries of the region have a privileged position as compared with the participants of the European Union. It is here that the need has arisen to establish the European Economic Area as an interim solution for the countries that have not acceded to the EU. Perhaps it is in the Arctic where it will be possible to demonstrate how a common European space without dividing lines can be formed with the participation of the EU, Norway, Russia and other interested stakeholders.
