House of Commons - Protecting the Arctic: The Government's response

Protecting the Arctic: The Government's response - Environmental Audit Committee Contents

3 Governance and strategy

Arctic governance

26. The Arctic Council[62] is the primary international forum for cooperation on Arctic matters.[63] Initially focused on undertaking research assessments in the Arctic, it has since moved on to developing pan-Arctic operational agreements—on search and rescue (signed in May 2011) and oil spill preparedness and response (May 2013).[64] As a permanent observer state at the Council, the UK aims to "work closely" and "thoroughly" with Arctic states to monitor developments, but not to "throw its weight around".[65] Being an observer state, however, did not mean participating in Arctic governance.[66]

27. Our earlier report and the associated Government response were taken by the UK Government to the Arctic Council for consideration. Mark Simmonds, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, told us that there was positive feedback on the Government's response which was seen to have struck the right balance between the UK contributing towards protecting the Arctic environment and not "interfering from the outside" with sovereign states. He also told us that the UK was participating fully in the EU's process of developing its Arctic policies and that at present the EU priorities "fitted comfortably alongside" those of the UK. The Government wished, however, to pursue Arctic matters primarily through UK channels.[67]

28. Since our 2012 report, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and India have been granted permanent observer status at the Council.[68] The EU's bid, however, was deferred. The Under-Secretary of State did not believe that these additional observers would have a negative impact on the UK, because most of the UK's influence was through sharing its "highly regarded scientific expertise" at working groups of the Council. Dialogue was ongoing with the new observer states and the UK was keen to develop a constructive relationship with them on Arctic issues.[69]

29. Although the Arctic Council allows observers, there are concerns about the inclusiveness of the decision-making at the Arctic Council. The UK's expertise was not drawn upon in developing the Council's oil spill preparedness and response protocol.[70] Environmentalists have called the protocol "vague" and of little practical use and warned that it fails to define companies' liabilities for any oil spills.[71] In our 2012 report we recommended that the Government give consideration to a 'wider' Council, convened under the UN, to allow the interests of non-Arctic states to be taken into account in the development and environmental protection of the Arctic.[72] Earlier this year a new 'Arctic Circle' forum was set up with the aim of influencing development in the region. It aims to "strengthen decision-making processes, ... facilitate dialogue and build relationships to confront the Arctic's greatest challenges" by bringing together a wider group of interests and stakeholders.[73] The group will hold its first meeting in Iceland in October 2013. The Under-Secretary of State told us that the Government was watching how that new forum developed and would participate in the first meeting. However, the Government continued to see the Arctic Council as the "main governing body".[74]

30. In our 2012 report we also called for a sanctuary to be created in at least part of the Arctic, where oil and gas operations and unsustainable fishing would be prohibited, and encouraged the UK Government to pursue this at the UN.[75] In response, the Government told us that it would push for a new 'implementing agreement' under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as "a clear means of designating High Seas Marine Protected Areas".[76] Ruth Davis from Greenpeace told us that this position did not recognise the urgency implied by the increased vulnerability of the Arctic ecosystem. The "glacial pace" of the UN Convention process argued for the UK seeking to speed up progress in this area through bilateral relationships.[77] The Under-Secretary of State believed that the environmental regulations of Arctic states were already of a "very high standard" and that because the Arctic was not an homogenous area, "local conditions" needed to be reflected in any agreements.[78]

31. There is a growing awareness of the benefits of more inclusive governance arrangements for the Arctic. We welcome the Arctic Council opening its doors to allow a wider group of countries to observe its work. It is too early to see how effective the new Arctic Circle group might be, but it appears to provide an opportunity for further dialogue on Arctic matters and might complement the role of the Arctic Council. The Government should work with the new Arctic Council permanent observers to help support the sustainable development of the region. The Government should also explore the opportunities for greater participation of parliamentarians and others in the Government's delegation to the Arctic Council. We urge UK-based individuals, companies, NGOs and the Government to engage and contribute to the new Arctic Circle's work.

The Government's Arctic Policy Framework

32. In our 2012 report we recommended that the UK Government begin the development of an Arctic Strategy to bring together the UK's diverse interests in the Arctic and engage all stakeholders. The Arctic states had developed their own Arctic strategies, and we had heard from Norway and Sweden that they would welcome the UK following suit.[79] In its response the Government stated that it "remains of the view that it would be inappropriate for the UK to have an Arctic Strategy akin to the strategies produced by the Arctic states because the UK does not have Arctic jurisdiction". However, "recognising the importance of making more accessible its Arctic policies", it committed to publishing a 'policy framework' for the Arctic in 2013.[80]

33. The Government intends that its policy framework should "bring together the Government's views and actions on the UK's main Arctic policy interests, including: oil and gas extraction, Marine Protected Areas, sustainable fishing, shipping, and Arctic governance".[81] The framework would "not be cast in stone" but respond to new developments.[82] The existing cross-Government Arctic Network, which meets every six months and comprises representatives from all UK Government departments with an interest in the Arctic, would oversee implementation and delivery of the framework.[83]

34. The Under-Secretary of State told us that the framework would be aimed at both UK and international audiences, and in particular would help demonstrate that there was significant interest from outside the region. The framework was developed in response to our call for a strategy, but the Government had been "careful with the language" in calling it a 'policy framework' rather than a 'strategy' to avoid any suggestion of overriding the jurisdiction of the Arctic states in the region. The Government had consulted with academia, NGOs and others in developing the framework and "would continue to do so".[84]

35. Although the UK Government does not have jurisdiction in the Arctic, what happens there will have impacts on the UK including on our biodiversity and weather. The Government's commitment to publish an Arctic Policy Framework is a welcome development, but we are disappointed that it will not contain any new policies to address the risks that we identified in our 2012 report, or be subject to a public consultation. The Government should use its first Arctic policy framework to set out how it will take a more active role in helping to shape the future of the Arctic. We recommend that the Government use the first version of its Arctic Policy Framework document as a draft for public consultation. As well as the issues we raise in this report, the Framework should explicitly address the areas discussed in our earlier report, including:

a narrative on how the Rio principles and the outcomes from the Rio+20 Summit will guide the UK's approach to the Arctic;
how the Government intends to use its science and research to increase its influence on Arctic matters;
how the Government plans to secure the pre-conditions for environmentally safe drilling in the Arctic;
how the Government intends to secure a much higher, preferably unlimited, financial liability regime for oil and gas operations throughout the Arctic;
the need for an area of the Arctic to be set aside as a 'sanctuary' and protected from oil and gas development, to be progressed in dialogue with both the Arctic Council and the UN;
how the Government will use its influence in international forums to help protect the Arctic from the possible impacts of increased international shipping, and how it will support relevant sectors of the UK economy to take advantage of future opportunities in a sustainable way; and
the Government's commitment to support the sustainable management of Arctic fisheries.

It should identify the policies and roles resting with each Government department and how those departments will co-ordinate in taking those forward. And the Framework document should set out how the Government will engage with the IMO, UN, Arctic Council, the EU and the Arctic Circle group in seeking the necessary environmental protection of the Arctic.

62 The Arctic Council was established in 1996 as a "high-level intergovernmental forum to provide a means for promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States ... on issues of sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic in particular". It is made up of the eight Arctic states, six organisations representing Arctic indigenous peoples and observers. http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/arctic-council/about-arctic-council Back

63 Although security and trade are not within its remit, and it plays a limited role (mainly in respect of environmental impacts) on issues such as shipping, energy and fishing. Back

64 Environmental Audit Committee, Second Report of Session 2012-13, Protecting the Arctic, HC 171, paragraph 130, [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/171/171.pdf]; http://www.arctic-council.org/eppr/agreement-on-cooperation-on-marine-oil-pollution-preparedness-and-response-in-the-arctic/ Back

65 Protecting the Arctic, op cit, paragraph 141. Back

66 Q 33 Back

67 Qq 35-37, 65 Back

68 http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/arctic-council/observers. Back

69 Qq 33, 53 Back

70 Protecting the Arctic, op cit, paragraph 99. Back

71 "Arctic nations' oil spill plans too vague, say environmentalists", Guardian.co.uk, 4 February 2013, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/04/arctic-nations-oil-spill-plans]. Back

72 Protecting the Arctic, op cit, paragraph 132. Back

73 http://www.arcticcircle.org/ Back