Dominance and Change in the Arctic

Russia claims the Arctic as Russian Territory

In early August 2007, traveling in a mini-submarine, members of Russia’s parliament planted their country's flag four kilometers (2.5 miles) below the North Pole at the climax of a mission to back up Russian claims to the region’s mineral riches.

Apparently the first expedition of its kind to reach the ocean floor under the North Pole, the aim was to establish if a section of seabed passing through the pole, known as the Lomonosov Ridge, is in fact an extension of Russia's landmass.

Russia of course claims it is. Yet, the Washington Post notes the US State Department’s response that the best available scientific evidence suggests the ridges in question are oceanic by nature and thus not part of any country’s continental shelf.. In addition, the Russian media reported that the US had started its own similar expedition earlier and that this may have been a race between the two nations.

Back to top

Why interest in the Arctic region suddenly?

The headlines caused by the Russian claim may appear to have been a sudden interest, but the interested parties have, for years, been interested in the potential the Arctic offers.

The US Geological Survey, a U.S. government agency, believes that the region may house approximately 25% of the world’s oil reserves.

Gas, even diamonds, are supposedly to be found there too.

Also lucrative is the opening up of access and trade routes as climate change breaks up more ice. The famed North West Passage across the top of Canada, and the North East Passage (also known as Northern Sea Route) across the top of Russia could become permanent passages, for example.

It is also thought that fishing and tourism could increase in the region. Fishing may alter the already-fragile ecosystem, while tourism is not guaranteed because of uncertainty on the weather patterns that will result from climate change (e.g. more rain would likely reduce tourism).

Back to top

Russia has attempted similar claims in the past

Russia’s claims, at time of writing, of course are disputed given the potential interests in the resources and potential trade routes emerging in the region.

As early as the 1920s, Russia (then the Soviet Union) made claims to the Arctic. Russia is, however, a party to the UN Convention on the Laws of the Sea, limiting it, and the other Arctic four to 200 miles of territorial waters. Under the treaty, these nations are allowed to file claim to the UN commission for more territory. But they have to prove that their continental shelves are geographically linked to the Arctic seabed.

This is what Russia is now claiming (and has done before in 2001, unsuccessfully), and awaiting verification. The Telegraph summarized how all the other nations were interested in similar claims, too:

Furthermore,

Back to top

Many countries in dispute over the region

However, it is not just Russia that is claiming territory in the region; most other countries have, or had, disputes with others. For example, between

• Canada and the US
• Canada and Denmark
• Russia and the US

The BBC provides a summary of some of the disputes:

(The Telegraph also goes into Canada’s rivalry with the US and Denmark over different parts of the Arctic region in further detail.)

And the Washington Post also adds to this:

What prompted the interest in the region in the first place? Another article in the Telegraph from 2004, suggests that Canada first laid claim to the North Pole in the 1950s though sovereignty was never granted. Recently, in 2004, Denmark also launched a bid to claim it. That prompted an unseemly scramble among Canadian and Russian scientists who are busily preparing rival arguments over sovereignty.

Accompanying these disputes, claims and counter-claims is inconsistency in arguments, or even double standards. Robert Bridge, writing in the Moscow News for example, notes that while Canada was understandably incensed at Russia’s recent stunt, they have done similar things in the past:

Bridge also noted MacKay’s erroneous claim that the Arctic was Canadian territory when MacKay said, It’s clear. It’s our country, it’s our property, it’s our water… The Arctic is Canadian. As mentioned above, it is international territory, although various nations are submitting claims, none of which to date have been successful.

And as DefenseNews.com and the Washington Times reported, Canada is looking to increase its military presence in the region. It is likely that Russia will be doing so too. Nonetheless many experts find that the territory is still very challenging to conquer even though climate change may unfortunately help create more political as well as environmental challenges.

Back to top

Climate, Environmental and Indigenous Challenges

The existing indigenous population in the circumpolar arctic region face further pressures on their ways of life.

According to UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Except for Greenland and Northern Canada, indigenous peoples form a minority, though they can form the majority in local communities.

They are therefore particularly vulnerable to increased immigration by non-indigenous people as a result of industrial development, and to increased competition for resources.

Another problem local populations face is from pollution, often carried by currents and winds from as far away as Russia, Canada and even the United States. Pollutants end up in local wildlife, from seals, fish and whales, which then eventually makes its way into people.

As the video further below also notes, pregnant women in parts of Inuit territory in Canada are advised to avoid certain foods due to increased mercury levels and other toxins. UNEP/GRID-Arendal also adds that this has led to the abandonment of traditional foods, which has also led to more unhealthy food habits acquired from non-indigenous peoples. See image source for more details.

A third and crucial problem that the fragile arctic region and its indigenous population and wildlife are already facing is climate change.

The Arctic sea ice is important in climate change: it reflects most of the sunlight back out to space, thus minimizing excess heat being trapped. With climate change and sea ice melting, there is less sunlight being reflected with more heat being absorbed by the oceans and resulting in even faster warming.

This could cause the Greenland ice sheet melting (which will actually increase sea levels, whereas the melting of Arctic ice will not because it is sea ice), and possibly increase the melting of permafrost in Siberia, which would release huge amounts of methane. Climate patterns such as ocean circulation patterns and jet streams could change quickly leaving little time for ecosystems to adapt.

Satellite observations show the arctic sea ice decreasing, and projections for the rest of the century predict even more shrinkage:

In terms of biodiversity, the prospect of ice-free summers in the Arctic Ocean implies the loss of an entire biome, the Global Biodiversity Outlook notes (p. 57).

In addition, Whole species assemblages are adapted to life on top of or under ice — from the algae that grow on the underside of multi-year ice, forming up to 25% of the Arctic Ocean’s primary production, to the invertebrates, birds, fish and marine mammals further up the food chain. The iconic polar bear at the top of that food chain is therefore not the only species at risk even though it may get more media attention.

Note, the ice in the Arctic does thaw and refreeze each year, but it is that pattern which has changed a lot in recent years as shown by this graph:

It is also important to note that loss of sea ice has implications on biodiversity beyond the Arctic, as the Global Biodiversity Outlook report also summarizes:

• Bright white ice reflects sunlight.
• When it is replaced by darker water, the ocean and the air heat much faster, a feedback that accelerates ice melt and heating of surface air inland, with resultant loss of tundra.
• Less sea ice leads to changes in seawater temperature and salinity, leading to changes in primary productivity and species composition of plankton and fish, as well as large-scale changes in ocean circulation, affecting biodiversity well beyond the Arctic.

Back to top