The future of Governance and handling Vulnerability in Arctic Ecosystems
- 13:00 Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement and Incubating the Science Leadership: Early Efforts to Pay off Later
Authors: Hyoung Chul Shin ( Korea Polar Research Institute ); David Balton ( Woodrow Wilson Center ); Peter Harrison ( Queen’s University ); Henry Huntington ( Ocean Conservancy ); Jacqueline Grebmeier ( University of Maryland ); Sung-Ho Kang ( Korea Polar Research Institute )Recently signed by 10 governments, including Arctic coastal states and non-Arctic partners, the "Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean" calls for the formation of a science body, the development of joint research programs, and production of advice through periodic meetings before a Conference of Parties will be held. While the Agreement has yet to come into force, options to develop science leadership have already been proposed and briefly described. Significant efforts are being made by the science community, often supported by governments, to examine the current status of scientific undertakings and to identify the knowledge gaps. There are other ongoing initiatives and field projects that are relevant to this Agreement, although they are not necessarily conducted in coordination with the aforementioned efforts. The benefits of the science leadership are obvious; to better organize the current science capacities and campaigns and to tailor the survey planning to achieve maximum outcomes to manage the future of fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean. This could be achieved by establishing a small-size secretariat, before the Agreement enters into force, which would be able to provide opportunities for all the Parties to make preparatory efforts, voluntarily but more officially and on equal footing. This presentation collates comparable cases and experiences, while proposing early priorities of the secretariat, which include inventorying current programs and generating coordination mechanisms.
- 13:15 The legal framework of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Arctic Ocean under UNCLOS
Authors: Yunjin Kim ( Graduate School of International Studies, Busan National University )
According to the target of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD), at least 10% of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are to be conserved by 2020. Considering the fact that a large portion of the Arctic Ocean lies in the areas beyond national jurisdiction and only 1.55% of the Arctic marine areas are protected, promoting the establishment of MPAs in the high seas implies that more effort is needed from all parties to expand the areas having comprehensive ecological approaches and networks toward vulnerable ecosystems.
However, establishing MPAs in the areas beyond national jurisdiction contains the issues of absences or limitations of the current UNCLOS legal basis. The present accepted legal framework for MPAs in the Arctic Ocean is likely to be a nation-led approach under the authority of the Arctic Council and its working groups (e.g PAME, CAFF) making it limited to the EEZ of the Arctic coastal states.
This analysis poses the questions; (1) what are the limits of MPAs establishment in the Arctic high sea under UNCLOS? (2) what type of strategies can be suggested to build a multilateral legal framework among the Arctic governance state actors including indigenous communities and non-Arctic participants? The paper will examine these issues based on current UN conventions, plans, and assessments of the Arctic Council’s working groups while giving a room for further consideration of a regional agreement in the future.
- 13:30 The Midas Touch: A Theory of Resource Curses
Authors: Daniel Arbucias ( University of Delaware )
This work conducts a comparative analysis on how petroleum and diamonds produce different outcomes in resource curse states. The opening of the Arctic has the potential to further distort state extraction institutions in Russia, Canada, Norway, UK, and the US. However, Norway and Canada's drilling in the Arctic pose an anomaly. If there exists a resource curse in the Arctic, it is mild in comparison to other petro-rich states, such as Nigeria or Venezuela. The theory of resource curses hypothesizes that petroleum extraction leads not only to different outcomes among resource curse states, but in fact to a different resource curse. Many analyses of the resource curse treat resources only as important as the revenues they generate, ignoring unique material and social qualities those resources possess. This theory considers revenues salient factors in determining differences among cursed states without ignoring how resources’ intrinsic qualities influence political, economic, and civil outcomes. Six hypotheses will be tested to evaluate competing resource curses. A quantitative assessment of thirty-five resource curse states will establish distinct linkages between resources and resource curses. Additionally, qualitative perspectives will analyze how diamonds and petroleum may lead to different economic, political, and violent resource curses.
- 13:45 Climate Bonds - Can financial products be a solution to protect vulnerable Arctic ecosystems?
Authors: Adrian Braun ( University of Lapland )
The idea of Socially Responsible Investments (SRI´s) emerged notably in the years around 2005. At the same time the term ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) entered the landscape of investment communities and several “green” financial products were developed. The dominant product that can be allocated to the niche of SRI`s are Climate Bonds (aka Green Bonds). These bonds work just like conventional bonds but the capital that is going to be raised, upon issuance, has to follow a purpose that benefits “the climate” to some extent. Thus, the capital has to go into something that either mitigates or adapts to the negative impacts of a warming climate. Decrease of greenhouse gas emissions or more energy-efficient technologies in industries are common examples in this regard. By considering a vulnerable Arctic ecosystem that suffers comparatively more in case of rising temperatures than more southern latitudes on the globe, it is of interest how climate bond issuers invest capital into Arctic regions to counteract climate change impacts. Consequently, a couple of questions arise. How can “global” capital be useful allocated in Arctic localities? Did Arctic cities/municipalities and Arctic corporations issued climate bonds to this date, to raise capital from the international financial markets? The global investment community (pension funds, investment banks, large-scale funds) have lots of power by allocating sources to projects, initiatives and movements. Research needs to be done, how investors perceive SRI´s in the Arctic compared to conventional investments and to what extent climate bonds are already in the investors´ portfolios. Listings on bond market places like the Luxembourg Stock Exchange, Oslo Børs or Helsinki Nasdaq reflect the relevance on climate bonds as well on the globe as in the Arctic context. This research focuses on the actual listings and links it to relevant literature (academic publications, NGO & IGO reports, sustainability reports) in the Arctic discourse.
- 14:00 National implementation of Ecosystem-based ocean management in two Arctic states
Authors: Gunnar Sander ( Norwegian College of Fisheries Science, UiT - Norway's Arctic university )
Arctic Council is one of several multilateral arrangements that have recommended Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM). For EBM to protect vulnerable Arctic ecosystems, effective measures addressing threats from all relevant activities must be put into practice. This requires implementation in at least two steps: First states must translate such recommendations into their national legal and/or policy frameworks. Second, planning must identify policy responses to threats identified in assessments, and implement the measures effectively.
Canada was a pioneer in enacting integrated ocean management already in 1996. The Ocean Act gave the mandate to one ministry, the DFO. Trial projects were undertaken in five Large Ocean Management Areas. The federal Canadian government has been inconsistent in its support for these, and finally terminated the further pursuit of integration in 2013. Norwegian EBM originates from a deep political stride over the future of the petroleum activities. A coalition government took the initiative to make a management plan for the Barents Sea in 2001 as a new mechanism for handling the conflict, without enacting legislation for the purpose. Since then, management plans have been institutionalized and routine for Norway’s three management areas.
The DFO delegated the planning to its own regional branches. The planning for the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management Plan occurred according to collaborative planning by consensus. Participants from governments, industries and stakeholders concealed disagreements in high-level statements in a strategic plan. They also postponed harder decisions that would concretize the content to a later stage of action planning. This never occurred. As a result, no new measures have been implemented.
The Norwegian government mobilized across ministries, both for producing assessments and for formulating policy responses to those in a management plan. The plan was made by the government in a top-down manner. Disagreements about policy were resolved ultimately at the highest political level of the coalition government, which was under pressure to reach internal compromises in order to survive. The plan was concrete on what were to be done, and most measures have been implemented afterwards.
The two cases refute prior general conclusions about statutory based national frameworks more likely to be successful than policy based. Instead, they underscore the need for political support. This requires that planning meets political needs. The cases also demonstrate the need for a whole of government approach. Moreover, there are several lessons to be learned about handling of conflicts, policy design
Thursday 24th January 2019
13:00 - 14:30