Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T08:32:03.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The whys and hows of a cooperative mechanism for the Arctic marine environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2016

William M. Eichbaum
William M. Eichbaum*
Affiliation:
Senior Fellow for Arctic Policy, WWF-US, 1250 24th Street NW, Washington, DC 20037, United States ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Arctic ministers agreed at the latest 2015 Arctic Council ministerial meeting in Iqaluit to establish a ‘Task Force to assess future needs for a regional seas program or other mechanism, as appropriate, for increased cooperation in Arctic marine areas.’ Involving the Arctic Council in increased coordination of national marine management measures, and in drawing on experts from international organisations or treaty bodies to address related questions, is consistent with the longstanding advisory role of the Arctic Council. It also builds prudently on the council's emerging role as convener to accomplish discrete tasks critical to the health of the Arctic environment and the wellbeing of Arctic peoples. In order to strengthen Arctic marine cooperation and governance, the Arctic Council should adopt some instrument or arrangement through which it can more effectively coordinate among national management efforts affecting the Arctic marine environment and increase the effectiveness of the interplay with global governance mechanisms. The purpose of this commentary is to present World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) perspectives on two important dimensions of this proposal. First, the commentary is to review the arguments as to why a strong regional seas program for the Arctic is required. Second, it is to address a series of questions that arise in considering the design of a framework mechanism necessary to create the program. The paper will provide WWF's views with regards to the mandate and scope of a future cooperative mechanism, its relationship to the Arctic Council and membership, and its legal form.

Type
THEMED SECTION: Arctic in the Anthropocene: sustainability in a new polar age
Information
Polar Record , Volume 52 , Issue 6 , November 2016 , pp. 680 - 685
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Maritime Boundary of 1 June 1990.Google Scholar
Agreement on Conservation of Polar Bears of 15 November 1973 (27 UST 3918).Google Scholar
Arctic Council 1996. Ottawa Declaration 1996. Ottawa: Arctic Council.Google Scholar
Arctic Council. 2004. Arctic marine strategic plan, 24 November 2004. Akureyri: Iceland. URL: https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/bitstream/handle/11374/72/AMSP_Nov_2004.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed 9 June 2016).Google Scholar
Arctic Council 2013. Kiruna vision for the Arctic 2015. Kiruna: Arctic Council.Google Scholar
Arctic Council 2015a. Iqaluit Declaration 2015. Iqaluit: Arctic Council.Google Scholar
Arctic Council 2015b. Senior Arctic Officials Report to Ministers 2015. Iqaluit: Arctic Council.Google Scholar
Arctic Council 2015c. The Arctic Council: perspectives on a changing Arctic, the council's work, and key challenges. A joint memorandum of a multilateral audit on the Arctic states’ national authorities’ work with the Arctic Council. Anchorage: Arctic Council.Google Scholar
Council, Arctic 2015d. Enhanced black carbon and methane emissions reductions. An Arctic Council framework for action. Iqaluit: Arctic Council.Google Scholar
Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction of 18 September 1997 (2056 UNTS 241).Google Scholar
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention) of 22 September 1992 (2354 UNTS 67).Google Scholar
Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention) of 9 April 1992 (1507 UNTS 167).Google Scholar
Molenaar, E.J. 2012. Current and prospective roles of the Arctic Council system within the context of the law of the sea. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 27 (3): 553–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PAME (Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment) 2013. Arctic Ocean review final report. Kiruna: PAME. URL: http://www.pame.is/images/02_Document_Library/Reports_to_Ministers/08_AC_Meeting/AOR_Executive_Summary_with_Recommendations.pdf (accessed 9 June 2016).Google Scholar
PAME (Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment) 2009. Arctic marine shipping assessment 2009 report. Akureyri: PAME. URL: http://www.pame.is/images/03_Projects/AMSA/AMSA_2009_report/AMSA_2009_Report_2nd_print.pdf (accessed 9 June 2016).Google Scholar
PAME (Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment). 2015. Arctic Council Arctic Marine Strategic Plan 2015-2025. Akureyri: Iceland. URL: https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/bitstream/handle/11374/413/AMSP%202015-2025.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed 9 June 2016).Google Scholar
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 10 December 1982 (1833 UNTS 3).Google Scholar
United States. 2014. Power Point presentation by US Senior Arctic Official at the SAO meeting in Whitehorse, Yukon, 22–23 October 2014. URL: www.knom.org/wp-audio/2014/11/2014-11-03-US-Chair-Arctic-Council.pdf (accessed 9 June 2016).Google Scholar