An interview with Charles Emmerson on Arctic environmental issues. Mr. Emmerson examines the Arctic’s sensitive environment, its challenges, the role of international cooperation in preserving the Arctic environment, Russia’s environmental policy in the region and possible political risks.
Foreign opinion
An interview with Charles Emmerson on Arctic environmental issues. Mr. Emmerson examines the Arctic’s sensitive environment, its challenges, the role of international cooperation in preserving the Arctic environment, Russia’s environmental policy in the region and possible political risks.
Interviewee: Charles Emmerson, Chatham House Senior Research Fellow
Interviewer: Maria Prosviryakova, RIAC
July 16, 2012
Theme music by Dexter Britain under Creative Commons License
Transcript
- This is an interview with Charles Emmerson for the Russian International affairs Council. Mr. Emmerson is Senior Research Fellow for the Energy, Environment and Development Programme at Chatham House.
Mr. Emmerson, the resilience of the Arctic’s ecosystem to withstand risk events is weak, and, of course, political and corporate sensitivity to a disaster is very high. What challenges is the Arctic ecosystem facing now? How could the developing infrastructure and climate change affect its environment?
Well, of course the Arctic ecosystem has already been affected tremendously by climate change. Climate change is sort of a disturbing factor, which means that anything that one might have thought about how ecosystem functions is then proven to be wrong or changing. For example, fishes are moving, it is hard to predict where they are going; the reduction of see ice is often a problem for some ecosystems, for example for polar bears and seals and other forms of life. So, the ecosystems are already changing in any case as a result of climate change. If you add on to that the possibility or in some cases the reality of industrial scale activity, then, I think, you have an additional set of factors which can certainly affect the ecosystem. So, for example, one thing that you see quite regularly up in the Arctic is very high levels of toxins, which are accumulated in bodies of arctic animals, these toxins are not produced in the Arctic, these are toxins that come from pollution elsewhere. The Arctic is the place where they all sort of converge, if you like. Not, that it is happening anyway, but if you have greater industrial activity in the North, then, of course, you have a greater risk of pollution in the North, you have a greater risk of oil spill in the North. These risks can be mitigated to some degree, but I do not think one can ever conceivably say that there is no risk or something is going wrong.
- Arctic development is the subject of political contention between the Arctic states. Nevertheless, environmental issues are very important and should be dealt with in cooperation. What are the best and most efficient ways for the Arctic states to cooperate on preserving the Arctic’s ecosystem?
Well, of course, the Arctic states are already working together in the form of the Arctic Council and I think that it’s got to be the best way.
- But do you think it is enough?
Well, I think that countries will also try to make arrangements bilaterally, but actually I think the Arctic Council is the best way. Is it enough? Would I like it to go faster? Would I like the Arctic Council to be stronger? Yes, certainly, I would like it to go faster. Yes, I would like it to grow stronger. But at the end of the day, it is really up to the Arctic states themselves deciding that they are willing to engage in this process. They are the ones who determine the speed and pace of this process. And, in general, if you think about the fact that the Arctic Council was actually only formed 15 or so years ago. Ok, it has taken us a while to get to Permanent Secretariat, which is where we are now.
But nonetheless, I think this is the organization, which is still finding its feet and it is certainly going in the right destination, in my view.
- How should Russia contribute to the environmental security in the region?
Well, obviously, Russia is the biggest player in the region. If you look at the coastline – 45% of the coastline of the Arctic is Russia. So, in my view, from environmental protection perspective, the job of the Arctic Council is to bring Russia on board along with it in terms of environmental protection, in terms of making sure that Russian regulation, the system that applies to Russian oil and gas exploration is at least as good as that in Norway or Canada. I won’t comment about the American system because that system is good, but I think there is scope across the Arctic for countries to try to understand what best practices in terms of oil and gas for companies but also in terms of governments are. And Russia is obviously a massive and massive key part of it probably the most important part of them.
- Do you see any shortcomings in the Russian environmental policy in the Arctic?
Well, look, people have been skeptical in the past about not only the system of environmental regulation in the Russian Arctic. In other words, when it actually works. So, the principle which, for example, operates in the British North Sea is that of the safety case argument, it is one where companies really have to show that they are going to do. It is not really a sort of a “box-ticking” exercise, and some people think that in Russia it is more of a “box-ticking exercise.” You know, companies say they are doing something, but may be they are not really doing it. And they say they are doing it, but it is not really embedded in the culture. So, this is the concern which some people have about environmental standards in Russia. However, I think you could say, the involvement of Western companies may raise environmental standards within the Russian industry; and I think there is awareness within the Russian industry that technical standards have to be raised, in particular in offshore areas. So, I think we are going in the right direction.
- What frameworks are required for the companies operating in the Arctic in order to avoid negative consequences?
Well, the only way of having no threat to the Arctic marine environment is not to drill there, and I think this has to be perfectly clear. I am not saying that this is what should happen, I am saying that is the only way you truly minimize risk. If you go ahead with oil and gas, it is about to happen in any places and particularly in the Russian Arctic, then you have to make sure that you have drill ships nearby in order to be able to cap a well, should there be a blowout. You need to make sure that you have physical structures which could withstand the impact potentially of icebergs, you have to make sure that pipelines are buried, so that if there are iceberg scours, iceberg is pulling along the sea fold, those pipelines are buried deep enough in order to prevent them from being disrupted by ice. So, all of these things need to be done right. The Arctic is not the only place where these issues are coming to play. And I think that there is quite a lot of technological development going on in this area because there are companies that are very interested in developing it. And if you ask why, for example, Rosneft has now signed deals with Eni, Exxonmobil and Statoil. Well, it is partly to gain access to technologies which are:
a) necessary to produce resources anyway. Russia needs them.
b) they are the only way of producing resources in environmentally sound way.
- Can you think of any potential political risks that might arise in the environmental context?
Well, you know, one point that I like to make a lot is: “if one company screws up in the Arctic then the whole industry will be affected”. But it is more than that. If there is an oil spill in part of the Arctic in winter (when it can’t be cleared up) and say that the oil drifts from under the ice on the ice, from one part of the Arctic to another, from one jurisdiction to another, then very quickly you have a business problem and environmental problem which becomes much wider geopolitical ramifications and then you got the question how countries themselves may respond politically if something goes wrong. It is all very well to have regulations in place, but when something really goes wrong then there will be a lot of political pressure for companies to be punished in one way or another, often to be excluded from future deals, all kinds of things. So, I think the level of political risk if something goes wrong for the company is very high and this certainly might play out in the international field as well, which is why it is so important for the arctic countries to get together in the Arctic Council and to discuss this issues, so that there is trust and cooperation in the space.
Mr.Emmerson, thank you so much for this interview. Have a great day.
