Environmental Degradation in the Arctic

Written by: Lai Xinyi, Lynn (23-E1)

Designed by: Del Rosario Julianna Kathlyn Katigbak (24-E6)

The icy plains of the Arctic remain a place unlikely to be visited by the common person. Yet, beneath the permafrost lies a treasure trove of black gold. It is estimated that about 22% of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas reserves lie in the Arctic, a figure large enough to rival the output of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). OPEC is currently the world’s largest producer and exporter of oil, accounting for 40% and 60% of the world’s produced and exported petroleum respectively. The USA and the former USSR have been capitalising on this since the 1960s, with the USA first extracting oil from Prudhoe Bay in 1964. In more recent times, the Russian state-owned energy company Gazprom has discovered and successfully extracted oil from a new oil field. These developments have many associated environmental and ecological impacts such as water and air pollution, and have deleterious impacts on the local food industry and regional ecosystems. 

The Arctic is home to approximately 240 species of fish, and its seafood industry is estimated to be worth about $5.6 billion. However, as a result of water pollution due to fracking, the survival of many marine species is under threat. One example of this would be the Arctic cod, one of the most abundant species, whose offspring depend on sea ice as a habitat. It is of particular concern in the context of climate change as the cod stock has decreased from 2 million to 0.3 tonnes this century due to climate change and the aforementioned environmental pollution. The ongoing and forecasted sea ice retreat could also have a significant impact on the Arctic food system as Arctic cod is an essential food source for a wide variety of seabirds, seals, and whales. There have been a few notable agreements made to tackle this issue.

The Oslo Declaration was signed by the Arctic Five in 2015 to “(manage) migratory and transboundary fish stocks”. However, it still allows for commercial fishing within the Central Arctic Ocean and is only applicable to the Arctic Five countries, which limits its efficacy. More recently, a moratorium on commercial fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean, the International Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAOFA), was signed in 2021.  The legally-binding agreement is effective for 16 years, after which the signatories—Canada, the European Union (EU), the USA, China, Japan, Russia, Iceland, Norway, South Korea and Denmark—can renew it in five-year periods. Also, the Ilulissat Declaration was signed in 2008 by the Arctic Five (Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the USA) with the goal of improving collaborative efforts within the Arctic and establishing responsibilities in response to the negative impacts of climate change with regard to melting ice in the Arctic Ocean. The Declaration encodes protection of the marine environment, maritime safety, and division of emergency responsibilities for disaster response. As collaborations between states already existed prior to the Declaration, it serves as a reassertion of duties and responsibilities within the Arctic.

On May 29, 2020, over 20 thousand tonnes of diesel flooded the Ambarnaya River, causing it to turn red. The oil spill, the largest ever recorded in the Arctic, came from a storage tank owned by Norilsk Nickel near Norilsk. As a result of the oil spill, the company had to pay nearly 2 billion USD in compensation, yet the damage to the ecosystem had already been done. Had such an oil spill occurred in a more temperate climate, the clean-up process could have been much easier, with oil-eating bacteria in the water being released to manage the oil spills. Due to the cold Arctic climate and water temperature, however, the efficacy of such measures decreases dramatically. It is therefore estimated that it would take years to clean up the Norilsk oil spill, if possible at all. According to a report conducted in Alaska, current oil spill control technologies are only able to clear 18% to 56% of the total volume of oil spilt in the summer, whilst being almost useless in the winter.

The Norilsk Oil Spill evidently caused heavy environmental damage and caused severe impacts on the livelihoods of the Indigenous people living near the oil spill and on the ecosystem. As a result of the oil spill contaminating the waters, many flora and faunae river have died, depriving fishermen of their livelihood and sustenance, while also rendering the water source unusable. Although this incident is the most widely known due to its large environmental impact, there are many more oil spills that occur in the Arctic every year. It highlights the impacts of poor government regulation of economic activities in the Arctic. Although the Russian government was cognizant of the issue, they could not get Norilsk Nickel to rectify the issue due to a lack of enforcement measures in place to compel the company to take action. Since companies have no incentive to fix their infrastructure unless they are obliged to by law, such incidents would continue to happen in the future if the status quo is maintained, potentially disrupting ecosystems and the lives of many indigenous peoples.

Currently, one of the most pressing issues the Arctic faces is climate change. Melting ice caps and other effects of climate change could severely impact sensitive ecosystems as well as the livelihoods of local residents and indigenous people. Furthermore, the competition for resources has led to an increase in industrial activities in the Arctic, resulting in a higher carbon output, which is accelerating global warming at an exponential rate. A steady source of energy from the Arctic is becoming increasingly desirable with the reliance of many European nations on Russian energy and the volatility of their supply. Yet, states exacerbate this issue through the exploitation of resources in the Arctic. As such, the extraction of resources and other harmful human activities within the Arctic should be well-regulated such that the environment is not adversely impacted. It is the obligation of the international community to protect these ecosystems, and delegates must understand the complex stakes that this issue holds. It is therefore imperative that delegates decide if extracting new resources should be encouraged, and if so, how, and propose ways to regulate the growth, taking environmental and sustainability concerns into consideration. 80% of the most developed countries benefit from quicker trade routes across the Arctic Ocean. As a result of these shorter trade routes, less fuel is consumed, fewer carbon emissions are produced, and commodities are transported more quickly. Thus, the balancing of economic benefit and preservation of the environment is a fine line to tread.  

While committees like the Arctic Regulatory Board (ARB) and the Arctic Military Task Force (AMTF) exist to promote intergovernmental cooperation, they would better serve their purpose by protecting and enshrining the rights of circumpolar people, and representing them in deliberation and relevant decision-making processes. Not only does the protection of circumpolar people preserve the environment they live in, the knowledge possessed by the people may benefit climate change mitigation efforts. The establishment of a separate committee to spearhead sustainable development alongside economic benefit would also greatly aid such efforts – such positive publicity is likely to benefit countries and corporations economically. On top of that, sustainable development including but not limited to green ships, climate change mitigation measures and sustainable harvesting of resources can be spearheaded by key stakeholders with the resources to do so. Countries, especially Arctic Nations as well as private corporations may contribute research expertise and technology to aid in the research of the Arctic climate, thereby improving our understanding and development of sustainable economic growth. Such research can be aided by the Arctic Research Program and Sc​​iTech Power, thereby enhancing our knowledge of the global and local effects of climate change to be used as a foundation for sound decision making.

Overall, environmental degradation in the Arctic is a serious issue, and greater cooperation between governments and corporations is required to mitigate the negative impacts of economic activities on the environment. Before climate change and its impacts on the Arctic environment becomes irreversible, it is imperative that we start taking steps so as to ensure sustained and sustainable economic growth not just in the region but for the rest of the world.