Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
March 17 – 19, 2017
Arctic Council
Background Guide
Chair
Emma Neely
Assistant Chairs
Alexandra Isaac, Ksusha Karnoup, Dana McDorman-Kolata
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
Hello delegates,
Welcome to the Arctic Council. The Arctic Council is the leading intergovernmental forum promoting
cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States, Arctic indigenous communities and other
Arctic inhabitants on common Arctic issues. In particular, issues of sustainable development and environmental
protection in the Arctic that will be discussed in this background guide and in the committee at large have arose
in the wake of climate. Issues that will be discussed are how best to preserving biodiversity in the face of global
warming and regional development.
Here’s what to expect from this committee: The Arctic Council for MSUMUNXVII will operate in a
different capacity than the real international body of the Arctic Council will operate to account for a variety of
perspectives. It will also differ from your traditional Model United Nations committee in that I fully expect
delegates to address all three topics by the end of the conference. The reason for this being is that these topics
are very inter-related, and any resolution for one topic will directly impact the other two.
First, the Ottawa Declaration lists the following countries as Members of the Arctic Council: Canada,
the Kingdom of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden and the United States. I
have included more countries that in real life would of observer status, but in my committee will have full
voting rights as the traditional member states would. Second, six organizations representing Arctic indigenous
peoples have status as Permanent Participants and are working groups of the Arctic Council. The category of
Permanent Participant was created to provide for active participation and full consultation with the Arctic
indigenous peoples within the Council. They include: the Aleut International Association, the Arctic
Athabaskan Council, Gwich’in Council International, the Inuit Circumpolar Council, Russian Association of
Indigenous Peoples of the North and the Saami Council. I have included more organizations to serve as
Permanent Participants including environmental NGOs, scientific organizations, and other advocacy related
groups. The Arctic Council regularly produces comprehensive, cutting-edge environmental, ecological and
social assessments through its Working Groups. Third, I have included various corporations that all also have
MSUMUN XVII
2
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
stakes (whether current or future) in this region that traditionally would go un-represented in the Arctic Council.
We feel this is necessary to observe a variety of perspectives ranging from governance, indigenous rights,
environmental, and economic. All characters are real people and can be researched – we encourage this!
In summary: Decisions for the MSUMUN XVII Arctic Council are taken after a consensus has been
reached amongst the 10 Arctic Council states, indigenous groups, and member corporations. Everyone has
equal voting rights and speaking privileges.
Some final notes: The Arctic Council is a forum; it has no programming budget. All projects or
initiatives are sponsored by one or more Arctic States. Some projects also receive support from other entities.
The Arctic Council does not and cannot implement or enforce its guidelines, assessments or recommendations.
That responsibility belongs to each individual Arctic State. The Arctic Council’s mandate, as articulated in the
Ottawa Declaration, explicitly excludes military security. Military security must be addressed however from an
environmental standpoint in this committee. The Council may also establish Task Forces or Expert Groups to
carry out specific work. Lastly, in the spirit of cooperation you must have at least one indigenous group sponsor
your resolution.
Letter to the Delegates
My name is Emma Neely, I am the Chair of this year’s Arctic Council, and I am a senior at Michigan
State University pursuing a BA in Comparative Cultures and Politics with an area specialization in the AsiaPacific. I have been a part of MSUMUN the past three years serving as an Assistant Chair for the first two in
the Animal Rights Coalition and SPECPOL (focusing on piracy), and last year as the Chair of the Crisis
Committee Global Coalition for Climate Action 2075. I was also a part of MSUIRO, the competitive Model UN
team for the past three years and won a verbal commendation in the International Maritime Organization. My
interest in climate change, and more specifically territorial water disputes, began with Model UN. We are
looking forward to meeting you all! Now let’s meet the rest of your dais.
MSUMUN XVII
3
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
My name is Alexandra Isaac and I am one of your Assistant Chairs. I am a freshman at MSU currently
pursuing a double major in Economics and International Relations with a minor in Political Economy. I have
been a delegate in MUN for three years, actively pursuing policy change and pretending to be a country that I
am not. I chose to be a part of the Arctic Council, because I am really passionate about the environment (and
polar bears). I think this is a really important topic to be aware of, because it has the potential to change not
only the environment, but also foreign policies and global markets. Trans-Arctic Shipping Routes represent the
modern day space race!
Hi my name is Ksusha Karnoup and I am a senior studying Comparative Cultures and Politics with a
related area in Eastern Europe. I will be one of your Assistant Chairs for The Arctic Council! This is my second
year in MSUMUN. Last year, I was the Assistant Chair for the Global Coalition for Climate Action 2075, a
crisis committee. Needless to say, I loved it and I am looking forward to working on climate issues once again. I
am a person who likes to look at all sides of the story, especially when it comes to the balance of development
and conservation, and I am curious to hear what you all have to say about this issue. The Arctic Council is a
group of rising importance that is going to be influential in the world in our lifetimes and that is pretty dang
cool.
Hi my name is Dana McDorman-Kolata and I am a freshman at MSU, and I plan on double majoring in
International Relations and Comparative Cultures and Politics. This is my first year participating in MUN, but I
am super excited to get my start as an Assistant Chair for the Arctic Council. My whole life I have loved
animals and I strongly believe they need to be protected. I believe taking care of the environment should be a
priority for the world and that is why I wanted to participate in the Arctic Council.
MSUMUN XVII
4
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
Topic 1: Preserving Biodiversity
Background Information
Biodiversity is the variety of life on the planet and its existence is vital in maintaining a healthy
environment, or in this specific instance, the Arctic. Each species (plant and animal) specific role in the cycle of
biodiversity generates numerous positive impacts on the ecosystem (and other biological processes) at large.
These impacts include: climate stability, aiding in nutrient storage and recycling, providing resources to break
down and absorb pollution, and more. Extreme climate conditions of the Arctic limit the number of species that
can survive, thus the interdependence of life, between the smallest of things (like lichen) and the largest of
creatures (like polar bears) is of utmost importance. In some shape or form all of these creatures are connected,
thus the loss of one lifeform ultimately affects the existence of another.
The loss of biodiversity is a serious and imminent problem in the Arctic. The loss of biodiversity in the
Arctic will affect food sources, plant life, cause the extinction of species, and overall have a detrimental impact
on global health of the planet. Currently the most pressing threats to Arctic biodiversity are loss of landmass
due to climate change and anthropogenic (human activity) stressors, which limit the physical space where
animals can live and pollute their already scarce habitats.
Loss of Land Mass
Climate change is melting the polar ice caps as a land mass and leaves
many species in danger of harm and extinction. Climate change and its effects on
land mass loss consequently negatively affects biodiversity. Over the years, there
has been obvious loss in sea ice, as shown in Figure 1. Arctic sea ice keeps the
polar regions cool and helps moderate global climate. Sea ice has a bright surface;
MSUMUN XVII
Figure 1: Loss of Arctic Ice
5
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
80% of the sunlight that strikes it is reflected back into space. As sea ice melts in the summer, it exposes the
dark ocean surface. Conversely, the ocean absorbs 90% of the sunlight. This leads to the oceans heating up, and
Arctic temperatures rising further. A small temperature increase at the poles leads to still greater warming over
time, making the poles the most sensitive regions to climate change on Earth.
This process accelerates ice-melt inland, resulting in the loss of tundra; this is
also known as the albedo effect (Figure 2). The localized effects of this leads
to clear changes in plankton and fish levels, which effects Arctic species
greatly. These supposed “isolated” changes in water temperature actually
affect the entire planet, such as through killing coral reefs in distant places.
This in turn affects fisheries (a livelihood in which millions depend upon)
Figure 2: The Albedo Effect
and limits global food supplies.
Sea ice is melted due to the following three phenomena: the greenhouse effect (trapping of greenhouse
gases inside Earth’s atmosphere heating up the planet), direct sunlight melting the ice, and the byproduct of
direct sunlight warming the ocean waters in the absence of significant
sea ice. This creates a domino effect on species that depend on the
existence of this ice. For example, this impacts the algae that grows
under the ice and feeds a plethora of creatures, and the iconic polar bear
that inhabits the top. Absence of sea ice will decrease animal
populations because they cannot adapt to their changing environment.
Figure 3: Polar bears are at risk of
extinction due to habitat loss
This loss of ice (seen in Figure 3) is expected to decrease the polar bear population by 30% in the next 45 years
alone. It is already altering food webs and limiting the availability of places for walruses and ice seals to rest
and breed, thus continuing the decline of biodiversity. This loss of sea ice affects all species in the Arctic biome
in some way or another, and does affect biodiversity across the globe.
The Arctic produces more than 10% of the world’s marine fisheries, and if we continue to lose landmass
at the rate we are doing so now, we will lose a major food source. Indigenous people depend on harvesting
species such as seals, walrus, polar bears, caribou, narwhals, belugas, bowhead and minke whales. Yet
MSUMUN XVII
6
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
indigenous peoples will not be able to hunt these creatures if the land that these animals live on disappears. The
Arctic and subarctic also holds a large percentage of the world’s wetlands and the continued warming of the
planet could eliminate them, causing a loss in the carbon storage and water cycling. This increased global
warming has displaced animals; they have been forced so far north that they eventually will have nowhere else
to go, thus forcing them into more highly populated areas, causing dangerous and unneeded human and animal
interactions, putting both people and animals at risk.
Anthropogenic Stressors – Climate Change and Other Activities
Anthropogenic stressors in the Arctic are also a great stressor on biodiversity and are more inflated when
combined with climate change. Humans bring pollutants, which can cause habitat degradation and overall have
a negative impact on the habitat and health of Arctic animals. Mining, Arctic settlements, and old military bases
are all sites of potential and current contaminants, such as mercury, which can build up in fish and ultimately
harm humans. High levels of pollutants have been found in polar bears, beluga whales, and certain sea birds.
Climate change has also affected the ways the environment used to previously deal with pollutants by limiting
the amount of ice and permafrost that used to capture these harmful contaminants. Harmful organic pollutants
and heavy metals have found their way to the Arctic through the air and water and can accumulate in food and
water sources impacting both animal and human health. Chemicals that deplete the ozone have also been found,
which increases exposure to ultraviolet light, something that can ultimately harm living things. The risk of
major oil spills is always looming, and such a spill would be challenging and time-consuming to clean, while
affecting land and water systems. Past military bases and other old places of human activity leave behind
contaminants and other pollutants, which have impacted and continue to impact biodiversity. As you will read
in later topics, new military bases are being built (or old ones being recommissioned) in the area to serve
geopolitical strategic interests.
During the search for oil, companies use seismic surveys to try to discover where oil is located on the
seabed. These seismic surveys use very loud noise, 250 decibels to be exact, to locate oil. When being used,
MSUMUN XVII
7
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
sound is blasted through the water every ten seconds, 24/7, for days or weeks at a time. These excessively loud
noises often cause hearing loss, even deafness, in marine life, which is a cause for concern in creatures like
whales and other marine animals that use sound to navigate, find mates, and find food in the dark waters of the
Arctic Ocean. This can result in the injury or death of these animals.
Areas of the Arctic, especially in the Bering Sea, are at a great threat of overfishing. While fisheries are
in danger due to the loss of land mass and therefore cause problems in food sources, overfishing is a problem
that itself affects biodiversity. In some areas, such as the Kamchatka region, the harmful and wasteful practice
of stripping caviar from salmon depletes the salmon population, while also harming the environment. The rise
in melting Arctic ice could also lead to more opportunities for places to be overfished. As the Arctic is already
in great peril from overfishing and the destruction of biodiversity, this could be a devastating blow. Currently
people are fishing faster than our ocean can even replenish, making the possibility of wiping out whole species
of fish all too possible. Populations need all levels of species to maintain the functionality of the ecosystem:
from top predator fish to plankton. Almost half of the fish caught in the US come from the Bering Sea and the
overfishing of fish here can impact the nourishment of the Kamchatka brown bear and other species.
In conclusion, the two major risks to Arctic biodiversity are ice melt and landmass deterioration, and
human-induced stressors such as overfishing and pollution. As mentioned earlier, the protection of Arctic
biodiversity is essential to the health of the entire planet and must be kept in the forefront of delegates minds in
discussions about resolutions. As a body, we must ensure that development can take place at a pace and on a
scale that is supportable by the fragile and changing Arctic ecosystems.
Questions to Consider
1. What kind of reforms and programs must be created to protect the rich ecosystems found in the Arctic
region?
2. How can countries collaborate with indigenous peoples to both prevent excessive pollution and
overfishing, and mitigate habitat loss?
MSUMUN XVII
8
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
3. What ways can you limit the impending and continual impacts of climate change, realizing this is a
world-wide problem, not just something targeted at the Arctic?
4. Pollutants are a major issue affecting biodiversity in the Arctic, what kind of regulations must be put in
place to limit their effects?
5. What kind of restrictions you would put on new shipping routes opening to address concerns about over
fishing?
6. Who will you have to work with and talk to develop such programs; what NGOs or governments would
be absolutely necessary in implementing ideas?
What to Include in a Resolution
•
Delegates resolution should plan for how to fund your programs and resolutions must be
involved
•
You are expected to create resolutions to combat climate change as a whole and be specific on
your implementation of such plans; i.e specific legislation (with funding) and specific methods to
reduce climate change.
•
You must discuss and make resolutions on how to avoid excessive human activity in the Arctic,
how to handle displaced wildlife, how to handle contaminations in fisheries, and what provisions
should be made to ensure indigenous people’s livelihoods remain intact.
•
You must include natural areas that are most important to the conservation of Arctic ecosystems
through working with local peoples in determining the best approach. For example, old
established parks may no longer be havens for species they were designed to protect so we need
to adapt to this changing environment.
MSUMUN XVII
9
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
Works Cited
Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna. “Key Findings.” Arctic Biodiversity Assessment, Conservation of
Arctic Flora and Fauna, www.arcticbiodiversity.is/the-report/report-for-policy-makers/key-findings#KF9.
Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna. “Species Diversity.” Arctic Biodiversity Assessment, Conservation of
Arctic Flora and Fauna, www.arcticbiodiversity.is/index.php/the-report/chapters/species-diversity.
Edwards, David, and David Cromwell. “The Ice Melts Into Water.” GeoEngineering Watch, GeoEngineering
Watch, 14 Jan. 2013, www.geoengineeringwatch.org/the-ice-melts-into-water/.
Gamiere, Ali. “Why Are Polar Bears Endangered?” Why Are Polar Bears Endangered?, Blogger, 8 Sept. 2014,
aligamiere04.blogspot.com/2014/09/why-are-polar-bears-endangered.html.
Green Facts. “Question 7: Arctic Climate Change.” Green Facts, Green Facts, www.greenfacts.org/en/arcticclimate-change/l-3/7-effects-on-people.htm.
Greenpeace International. “Overfishing.” Greenpeace International, Greenpeace International,
www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/oceans/fit-for-the-future/overfishing/.
Polar Bears International. “Arctic Sea Ice Day Albedo Effect.” Polar Bears International, Polar Bears
International, 22 June 2015, www.polarbearsinternational.org/media/images/arctic-sea-ice-day-albedo-effect.
Shah, Anup. “Climate Change Affects Biodiveristy.” Global Issues, www.globalissues.org/article/172/climatechange-affects-biodiversity.
Ware, Christopher. “Arctic at Risk from Invasive Species.” The Ecologist, The Conservationist, 25 Nov. 2013,
www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2173097/arctic_at_risk_from_invasive_species.html.
“Why Is Biodiversity Important? Who Cares?” Why Is Biodiversity Important? Who Cares? - Global Issues,
Global Issues, www.globalissues.org/article/170/why-is-biodiversity-important-who-cares.
World Wildlife Fund Global Arctic Fund. “Global Arctic Programme.” doi:10.18356/d95f1e93-en.
WWF. “Places: Arctic.” WWF, World Wildlife Fund, www.worldwildlife.org/places/arctic
MSUMUN XVII
10
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
Topic 2: Trans-Arctic Shipping Routes
Background
There are currently three projected trade routes for the
Arctic: The North-West Passage, the North-East Passage, and
the Central Arctic, shown in Figure 4. The North-West
Passage borders Alaska, Northern Canada, and the southern
portion of Greenland. The North-East Passage borders
Russia, Norway, and Iceland. The third route, which is the
Central Arctic Passage, serves as the most direct route for
Figure 4: Image of three projected trade routes
through the Arctic
ships that do not need to make stops in northern countries and states. These routes are dependent on the melting
ice caps, which are projected to be completely melted in this region by 2020. The ownership of these trade
routes, if decided upon by the Arctic Council, will serve as three of the most revolutionary routes in modern
history. They will ease almost all barriers to trade shipments between many Asian countries to Europe, creating
new trade partners and boosting the global economy.
Who Will Have Control of Routes?
Control of the ice caps is dependent on three major factors: the time taken for the ice caps to melt, the
demand for the routes, and the compromises made by global leaders. The Arctic Council has discussed the
possibilities of regional control, as well as the possibility of control of the trade routes being a global
initiative. Shipping hubs will be placed in countries that border the North-West and North-East Passages,
therefore, debates have suggested that regional control should take precedence. Control over certain areas has
been claimed by Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Russia. Potential pending claims have also been proposed by
Canada, Denmark, and the U.S.
MSUMUN XVII
11
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
In 1982, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
came to conclusions about several major components to
Trans-Arctic Shipping Routes. Two of the resolutions
included exclusive economic zones of up to 200 miles off
shore and nautical mile boundaries, as shown in Figure 5.
These exclusive economic rights give countries claim over
international waters with regards to exploration and use of
marine resources. Some examples of marine resources that
can be harvested from the area include energy produced from
water and wind.
Economic Impacts
The Trans-Arctic Trade Routes have been claimed to
be “as revolutionary as the Suez Canal.” Serving as a link
between the western and eastern parts of the globe, the Trans-
Figure 5: Boundary Disputes in the Arctic Circle
as it pertains to the UN Convention on the Law
of the Sea
Arctic routes prove to be 40% shorter than the Suez Canal. Not only will this be cheaper for major shipping
companies, because it will shorten the time between the supplier and the purchaser, but it will also allow
shipping companies to make more trips across the globe, making sea trade more convenient and cost effective.
The Trans-Arctic routes will thus encourage shipping companies to expand their markets, reaching to more
areas of the world, encouraging a more global market. The Suez Canal and the Strait of Malacca currently have
monopolies in the sea trade market. Serving as a link between the eastern and western parts of the world, the
Suez Canal can charge excessive fees for shipping companies to pay in order to utilize the route. Shipping
companies must not only pay hefty fees, but must also wait overextended periods of time to use the canal. With
the establishment of Trans-Arctic Trade Routes, companies will be more willing to travel further distances and
connect with new countries around the world for their shipping needs. The Trans-Arctic routes have the
MSUMUN XVII
12
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
potential to become key routes and to generate revenue for not only those in control of the region, but also for
countries around the world. New trade partners will be linked together, thus yielding exponential economic
growth.
Who Will Be Affected?
The United States, a key region in the Trans-Arctic Shipping Routes, hopes to develop shipping hubs in
Alaska. The shipping hub would generate revenue and encourage trade into the region, serving as a land-to-sea
shipping port, allowing products to be distributed throughout North America from its hubs. Other countries
looking to take advantage of land-to-sea ports are Iceland, Greenland, Norway, and Russia. These countries
will be more encouraged to trade and facilitate positive relations across continents, because of the economic
benefits felt from trade expansion, such as revenue generated from trade tariffs and shipping route
fees. Although Russia has taken action towards trying to take control over large portions of Arctic waters,
Canada, Iceland, Greenland, Norway, and the U.S. are seeking peaceful resolutions, expanding trade markets
and economic benefits. Russia has also been reopening military bases in the Arctic, causing international
tensions.
In addition to the countries seeking to benefit from seaports, China will also benefit heavily from the
introduction of Trans-Arctic Shipping Routes. China is currently limited to the Suez Canal, controlled by
Egypt, and the Strait of Malacca, controlled by Indonesia, for trade, where 80% of its imports pass
through. The introduction of Trans-Arctic Shipping Routes will alleviate some of the economic drains that the
Strait of Malacca places on China, as China is dependent on the Strait and is actively seeking an alternative to
the high costs for trade with the rest of the world. In addition to the positive effects of Trans-Arctic Trade
Routes, negative effects are also felt, especially by Indonesia, a country with key stakes in the Strait of
Malacca. Without the income from China, Indonesia will suffer from economic losses from several parts of the
world that will seek alternative routes in the north.
MSUMUN XVII
13
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
China is currently heavily involved in the Arctic, and is actively researching the area. China has
allocated more resources to Arctic research in recent years, when it became apparent that Arctic trade routes
were more imminent than originally projected. China currently has one of the leading world research
capabilities in the Arctic region. Along with China, Japan has also made moves towards Arctic involvement
with agreements with Finland to boost cooperation with academic resources, trade opportunities, and
willingness to work together. This partnership indicates the positive effects of the trade routes, connecting
eastern and western countries under one common goal.
The European Union has also sought to obtain access to Arctic bases in order to intensify global
competition and influence diplomatic ties and developments in the Arctic region, helping to make Arctic
involvement more favorable.
Trade Influences
The Trans-Arctic Shipping Routes serve as a link for the future of global trade. The routes cut travel
time by twelve to fifteen days, traveling between Western Europe and East Asia. By cutting the time, the
shipping routes encourage trade between these regions, opening new markets and encouraging economic growth
for both regions. Around 17% percent of the world’s daily oil production passes through the Strait of Malacca.
20 to 25% of Russia’s GDP is generated through oil and gas trade. Because of the high stakes felt by Russia,
Russia has attempted to expand its Arctic territorial claims past the agreed two-hundred nautical mile radius
from the shoreline. This expansion was not well accepted by the international community, however. Russia
and Norway are currently having disputes over a region shared in both of their territories. This conflict
potentially puts strains on trade in this region, however, the dispute has remained peaceful thus far.
Questions to Consider
1.
In what ways will trade expansion increase, and conversely decrease global tensions?
MSUMUN XVII
14
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
2.
Do the economic benefits of Arctic trade routes outweigh the negative environmental impacts? How will
you address these negative impacts?
3.
How can a resolution benefit all involved parties?
What to Include in a Resolution
•
Specific ways to funding the resolution when necessary
•
Specifically, who(m) will have jurisdiction of the trade route(s) once they have been created.
•
The economic impacts hoped to be achieved and the environmental protective measures that will
be in place – There exist significant tradeoffs between energy independence and environmental
impacts
•
Clauses that will benefit the whole committee (and not just one specific country) and help
advance discussions on Trans-Arctic Trade Routes
Works Cited
ARCTIS. “Arctic Sea Routes.” ARCTIS Database, Arctic Resources and Transportation Information System,
www.arctis-search.com/.
Daiss, Tim. “Russia Kicks Up Arctic Oil Drilling As Polar Ice Caps Melt.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 22 Aug.
2016, www.forbes.com/sites/timdaiss/2016/08/22/a-deal-with-the-devil-russia-kicks-up-arctic-oildrilling/#4ba8c4375462.
Gwladys Fouche, Reuters. “Uncharted Waters: Mega Cruise Ships Sail the Arctic.” Alaska Dispatch News,
Alaska Dispatch News, 10 Oct. 2016, www.adn.com/arctic/2016/10/10/uncharted-waters-mega-cruise-shipssail-the-arctic/.
The Independent Barents Observer. “Arctic News Articles.” The Independent Barents Observer, Ramsalt
Media, thebarentsobserver.com/.
MSUMUN XVII
15
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
Mead, Walter Russell, and Henry A Kissinger. “Extreme Meassures.” Council on Foreign Relations, The
Washington Post, 25 July 1999, www.cfr.org/arctic/thawing-arctic-risks-opportunities/p3208.
Plait, Phil. “There's Something Strange Happening to Arctic Sea Ice.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 27
Nov. 2016, www.businessinsider.com/arctic-sea-ice-is-declining-when-it-should-be-growing-2016-11.
Rosen, Yareth. “Arctic Soils Are Set to Release a Lot of Carbon.” Alaska Dispatch News, Alaska Dispatch
News, 1 Dec. 2016, www.adn.com/arctic/2016/12/01/led-by-arctic-warmed-soil-poised-to-pour-vast-amountsof-carbon-into-atmosphere/.
Slav, Irina. “Arctic Oil Is Crucial for Russia.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 24 Aug. 2016,
www.businessinsider.com/arctic-oil-is-crucial-for-russia-2016-8.
Starr, Barbara. “U.S. Submarine Returns From Arctic Mission.” CNN, Cable News Network, 31 Aug. 2015,
www.cnn.com/2015/08/31/politics/uss-seawolf-submarine-navy-arctic/.
Toole, Andrew. “Artic Turf War- It's All about Location!” Andrewsoption Wordpress, Wordpress, 26 Nov.
2013, andrewsoption.wordpress.com/tag/territory/.
Zukunuft, Paul. “U.S. Needs More Icebreakers to Keep Watch in Arctic.” Alaska Dispatch News, Alaska
Dispatch News, 15 Aug. 2016, www.adn.com/opinions/2016/08/15/u-s-needs-more-icebreakers-to-keep-watchin-arctic/.
MSUMUN XVII
16
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
Topic 3: New Resource Extraction
Introduction
The eternal conflict between environmentalism and development
has struck again, this time in the Arctic Circle. As global climate change is
melting the polar ice caps, new economic opportunities for extraction of
resources emerge. Unfortunately, this also means there will be territorial
disputes and environmental degradation. So far, five nations have laid
claims to territories in the Arctic: Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and
the US. Others have their eyes on the area as well. The Arctic holds about
30% of the world’s untapped natural gas and 15% of its crude oil. This
region is also sought after for lead, iron, chromium, copper, gold, nickel,
platinum, uranium, diamonds, silver, and fisheries. This is a new source of
Figure 7: Sea zones established by
UNCLOS
‘free’ resources that could boost the global economy, especially
industrializing economies. These international waters
lack the regulation and infrastructure that would mitigate
the effects of oil spills, but infrastructure is needed in
order to extract these resources. Indigenous peoples’
livelihoods may be threatened by the resource extraction
here because extractive projects that do exist are built
near lands of indigenous people, or indigenous people
are not included in discussions of the fate of the usage of
their sacred territories. Corporate and state interests often outweigh those small indigenous communities who
have been there for centuries. The problem comes to light
Figure 6: Up to date territorial claims in the Arctic
at the beginning of the extraction process when proving legal ownership of native lands that are held
MSUMUN XVII
17
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
communally in indigenous society is difficult. ownership of native lands that are held communally in
indigenous society is difficult.
Background/History
In the 1970s, Russia and the US successfully drilled for oil in the Arctic Circle. The most recent portion
of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which governs international waters and manages
disputes, entered into force in 1994. Prior to this two other UNCLOS took place: UNCLOS I and II. This
convention established several zones surrounding the borders of each Arctic coastal nation. A nation’s territorial
seas, which can reach up to 12 nautical miles from the baseline (estimated coastline). The contiguous zone
reaches 12 nautical miles beyond the territorial sea line. The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) can reach up to
200 nautical miles from these baselines and is where a country has the rights to those natural resources. These
specific zones are important and highly contested; this body must address these sites of conflict.
Of particular interest is the Convention on the Continental Shelf treaty, which entered into force in June
1964 and has been updated since. The treaty deals with these topics: the regime governing the superjacent
waters and airspace, laying or maintenance of submarine cables or pipelines, the regime governing navigation,
fishing, and scientific research and the coastal state’s competence in these areas, delimitation, and tunneling.
Activity in the Arctic is limited by its remoteness, short season, and still existing sea ice, however
change is happening. Drilling oil here has brought prosperity already to several northern towns in Canada,
Greenland, and Russia that would have remained remote otherwise.
Maritime Borders
Maritime boundaries are under scrutiny due to the constant unveiling of the ocean from sheets of ice.
UNCLOS does not contain clear instructions for the division of water claims that have been considered
unreachable due to ice since the beginning of time. There are set rules for extending continental shelf rights up
to 350 miles offshore. Countries that have ratified UNCLOS may control an area of seabed if they can show it is
MSUMUN XVII
18
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
an extension of their continental shelf (EEZs may not be extended as a result). The
trouble here is that it is difficult to determine where the foot of the continental slope is.
Claims to an extended continental shelf are supposed to be filed within ten years of
ratification of UNCLOS, so these disputes have all been filed, with the exception of
the US, who has yet to ratify UNCLOS.
Figure 8: Russia places
its flag on the seabed of
the North Pole
The UN commission approved Russia's extended claims on the outer limits of
its continental shelf. Also, a large part of Northern Canada’s archipelago is in the
Arctic and it has not been decided by NATO whether or not it will play a role in this area. Canada, of course,
does not welcome this. Denmark has claimed the North Pole, arguing that the sea above Greenland is its rightful
territory since Greenland is a self-governing entity of Denmark. Russia has also made a mark on the North Pole
by placing its flag on the seabed where the pole is (Figure 8). Denmark and Canada have been disputing over
Hans Island (Figure 9), a half square-mile piece of rock, since the 1930s.
This is potentially a strategic location for securing natural resources in in
the surrounding sea. The International Seabed Authority is a monitoring
organization created by UNCLOS that keeps track of borders and can
supposedly administer resources.
Figure 9: Hans Island
Conflict and Cooperation
Russia began militarizing the area in 2015; the Arctic serves as the stomping grounds for new soldiers
and new military bases are sprouting up quickly. The Arctic Trefoil is an active base located on an icy island on
the 80th parallel. There is also a second, smaller base, that exists in Russia’s Arctic territories. Two-thirds of
Russia’s Navy is comprised of its Northern Fleet. Submarines are as active now in the Arctic as they were
during the Cold War. Russia also wants to open nine airfields and six smaller bases here. The international
community is generally suspicious of Russian Arctic presence in a military capacity; their motives are unclear.
MSUMUN XVII
19
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
This past March, when a NATO C-130J
plane crashed into the side of a Swedish
mountain, Russia was on the lookout. Russia
followed up by testing its T-80 tanks. Norway has
one military base in the Arctic, as well. The US is
also conducting military exercises in the Arctic.
Joint US and Russian military exercises were
planned to take place, but have been cancelled.
Canada is expanding its Resolute Bay facility: its
Arctic training center that opened in 2013.
Canada wants to conduct military exercises in the
Figure 10: Russian militarization of the Arctic
North, with the permission of the Nunavut government and community. Exercises in the Arctic can cost five to
seven times more than if there were conducted in southern Canada, according to 2013 army planning documents
obtained by Postmedia. NATO Minister, Epsen Barth Eide, says that NATO members do have conflicting
interests in the Arctic, but they do agree that these will be solved using rule of law and the judicial system, not
warfare. NATO and Russia have agreed not to have conflict in the Arctic seas, for now.
In conclusion, treaties between Arctic countries do exist, however it is imperative for more treaties to
arise in order to peacefully proceed in exploit the region’s resources. The Arctic Council’s two agreements in
regards to Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and Continental Shelf rights are subject to change and may
transcend current boundaries due to their importance. All nations in this body have some stake in the protection
and political maintenance in the region including: search and rescue missions, as well as emergency oil spill
protocol. Otherwise, there is a lot of room for disagreement when natural resources are at stake.
MSUMUN XVII
20
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
What to Include In a Resolution
•
How resources will be divided and/or where the borders will be and the roles each entity will
play in the agreement.
•
Address areas where conflict may arise (and already has)
•
Specific funding, enforcement mechanisms, and necessary structure to implement your
resolution
•
Future technological innovation efforts to oil extraction less impactful on the environment
Questions to Consider
1) How will countries avoid militarized conflict in the region?
2) How will countries include indigenous groups in territorial use, building extraction plants near
their communities, and eliminate obstacles to indigenous ownership claims?
3) What are good methods to divvy up resources? Should resources be off limits?
4) How will you maintain environmental integrity in the region?
5) What advantages and powers does your country or entity have that will help you achieve your
goals in the Arctic?
6) What are you going to do with the resources you extract? What is the purpose?
Works Cited
Bender, Jeremy. “2 Countries Have Been Fighting over an Uninhabited Island by Leaving Each Other Bottles of
Alcohol for over 3 Decades.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 10 Jan. 2016,
www.businessinsider.com/canada-and-denmark-whiskey-war-over-hans-island-2016-1.
Council on Foreign Relations. “The Emerging Arctic.” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign
MSUMUN XVII
21
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
Relations, www.cfr.org/arctic/emerging-arctic/p32620#!/+.
Dyer, John. “Russia Is Wrapping the Arctic in a Loving, Militarized Embrace | VICE News.” VICE News,
VICE News, 22 Oct. 2015, news.vice.com/article/russia-is-wrapping-the-arctic-in-a-loving-militarizedembrace.
The Economist. “Frozen Conflict.” The Economist, The Economist Newspaper, 20 Dec. 2014,
www.economist.com/news/international/21636756-denmark-claims-north-pole-frozen-conflict.
Friedman, Uri. “The Arctic: Where the U.S. and Russia Could Square Off Next.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media
Company, 28 Mar. 2014, www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/the-arctic-where-the-us-andrussia-could-square-off-next/359543/.
International Seabed Authority. “About The International Seabed Authority.” About The International Seabed
Authority | International Seabed Authority, International Seabed Authority, www.isa.org.jm/authority.
Kernan, Mark. “The Economics of Exploitation: Indigenous Peoples and the Impact of Resource Extraction.”
Www.counterpunch.org, 30 Mar. 2016, www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/20/the-economics-of-exploitationindigenous-peoples-and-the-impact-of-resource-extraction/.
Kramnik, Ilya. “NATO, Russia Stage Arctic War Games.” Atlantic Council, Atlantic Council, 25 Apr. 2012,
www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/nato-russia-stage-arctic-war-games.
Palmisano, Joseph. “Debating Resource Exploitation in the Arctic and Antarctic.” Law Street Media, Law Street
Media, 23 July 2016, lawstreetmedia.com/issues/energy-and-environment/arctic-antarctic-opened-resourceexploitation/.
Park, Gary. “Arctic Gets Fresh Look.” Petroleum News, Petroleum News, 14 Sept. 2014,
www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/788762887.shtml.
Pugliese, David. “Canadian Forces to Expand Nunavut Training Centre as Russia Plans More Bases in the
Arctic.” National Post, National Post, 23 Feb. 2016, news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-forces-toexpand-nunavut-training-centre-as-russias-plans-more-bases-in-the-arctic.
Review, NATO. “The Changing Arctic: How Involved Should NATO Be?” NATO Review, Nato International,
2013, www.nato.int/docu/review/2013/partnerships-nato-2013/changing-artic-nato-involve/en/index.htm.
MSUMUN XVII
22
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
Rosen, Armin. “US Admiral: Russia's Submarine Activity in the North Atlantic Is at Cold War Levels, but We
Don't Know Why.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 5 Feb. 2016, www.businessinsider.com/russiassubmarine-activity-in-the-north-atlantic-is-at-cold-war-levels-2016-2+ .
United Nations. “Transboundary Waters.” United Nations, United Nations,
www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/transboundary_waters.shtml.
United Nations. “United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea III.” United Nations Convention on Law of the
Sea, United Nations, www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf+.
Van Efferink, Leonhardt. “Arctic Geopolitics - Russia's Territorial Claims, UNCLOS, the Lomonosov Ridge Exploring Geopolitics.” Exploring Geopolitics, Exploring Geopolitics, 29 June 2016,
www.exploringgeopolitics.org/publication_efferink_van_leonhardt_arctic_geopolitics_russian_territorial_claim
s_unclos_lomonosov_ridge_exclusive_economic_zones_baselines_flag_planting_north_pole_navy/.
The White House. “National Strategy for the Arctic Region.” The White House, The White House, May 2013,
www.bing.com/cr?IG=A70075ED6130488DBC21DBF180DABEB3&CID=3655ED874ABB60A50C08E4674
B8A6119&rd=1&h=CaXCqK2jv4Pv23HckIRkQb4BwxaI4iPiJ8DsxbMpRm4&v=1&r=https%3a%2f%2fwww.
whitehouse.gov%2fsites%2fdefault%2ffiles%2fdocs%2fnat_arctic_strategy.pdf&p=DevEx,5086.1.
World Ocean Review. “The Limits to the Law of the Sea.” World Ocean Review, World Ocean Review,
worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/law-of-the-sea/limits-to-the-law-of-the-sea/.
MSUMUN XVII
23
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
Character List
1. Representative for Canada: Alison LeClaire
2. Representative for the Kingdom of Denmark: Hanne Fugl Eskjær
3. Representative for Finland: Aleksi Härkönen
4. Representative for Iceland: Arni Thor Sigurdsson
5. Representative for Norway: Anniken Ramberg Krutnes
6. Representative for the Russian Federation: Vladimir Barbin
7. Representative for Sweden: Andres Jato
8. Representative for the United States of America: Julia L. Gourley
9. Representative for Japan: Fumio Kishida
10. Representative for China: Li Keqiang
11. Representative for NATO from Germany: Dr. Hans-Dieter Lucas
12. Representative for the Aleut International Association (AIA): Arlene Gundersen
13. Representative for the Arctic Athabaskan Council (AAC): Chief Bill Erasmus
14. Representative for the Gwich'in Council International (GCI): Joe Linklater
15. Representative for the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC): Okalik Eegeesiak
16. Representative for the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON): Grigory
Ledkov
17. Representative for the Saami Council: Áile Jávo
18. CEO of Royal Dutch Shell oil company: Ben Van Beurden
19. Representative for American ExxonMobil Corporation: Rex Wayne Tillerson
20. Representative for the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment working group (PAME)-Renée
Sauve
21. Representative for Petro Canada Corporation: Ron Brennema
MSUMUN XVII
24
Michigan State Model United Nations | Session XVII
22. Representative for the North Pole Economical Observatory: James L. Olds
23. Representative for the Greenland Gas and Oil Exploration Company: Roderick Mcillree
(CEO/Chariman)
24. Representative for the Sustainable Development Working Group: Roberta Burns
25. Representative for the Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR) working group: Amy
A. Merten
26. Representative for the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) Working Group: Reidar
Hindrum
27. Representative for the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) Working Group: Martin
Forsius
28. CEO the Hurtigruten Cruises and Cargo Inc: Daniel Skjeldam
29. Arctic Contaminants Action Program (ACAP) Working Group: Ulrik Westman
30. Representative for the Tschudi Shipping Company of Norway: Mark de Jonge
31. CEO of the Rosatom Corporation of the Russian Federation: Alexey Likhachev
32. CEO British Petroleum (BP): Andy Hopwood
33. Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project President: John Carruthers
34. CEO of Gazprom Company of the Russian Federation: Alexey Miller (CEO)
35. Representative for Statoil of Norway: Eldar Sætre
36. NATO Minister: Espen Barth Eide
37. Representative of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF): Carter Roberts
38. Representative of Greenpeace International: Kumi Naidoo
39. Representative of the International Polar Foundation: Nighat Amin
40. President of the Wilderness Society: Jamie Williams
MSUMUN XVII
25