Brussels, 02/04/2009 (Agence Europe) - While the EP was to take a stance in plenary today on a joint resolution by six groups (EPP-ED, PES, ALDE, Greens/EFA, UEN) on the subject of the Arctic, deferral of the vote was finally decided by a majority of the House (352 votes to 241 and 13 abstentions). The request for adjournment was put forward by Avril Doyle (EPP-ED, Ireland), before being approved by Diana Wallis (ALDE, UK). According to Avril Doyle, postponement is to allow account to be taken of the stance expressed by Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner, who said during the debate the day before that, at this stage, conditions have not been met for negotiating a new international treaty on protection of the Arctic.
The commissioner takes the view that the EP's proposal comes at a bad time. This is because, on one hand, the EU is negotiating with these countries in order to obtain observer status within the Arctic Council, which should take its decision during its 6th ministerial meeting on 28-29 April in Norway, and, on the other, the Commission will “work closely with the International Maritime Organisation, developing and enforcing solid international standards for safer Arctic navigation, respecting human safety and environmental sustainability”. Under such conditions, the negotiation of a new international treaty for the protection of the Arctic could weaken the current cooperation framework with all Arctic states, which show a preference for the existing legal framework, namely the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982). It was therefore to take into account the state of progress of negotiations and of the timetable to come that Ms Doyle and Ms Wallis defended postponement of the vote.
Véronique De Keyser (PES, Belgium) considers on the other hand that this decision is a “step backward”, which can be damaging in a context where “claims of sovereignty on the Arctic zone by five border countries (Canada, Denmark, Russia, United Nations and Norway) cause perceptible tension”. The Socialist MEP went on to add that it is a matter of “political urgency” to act when the five rim states have until May 2009 to claim sovereignty over the marine depths of the Arctic. Last Friday, Canada's Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon promised “greater political surveillance and military presence in the Canadian Arctic waters” in reaction to the Kremlin's declaration to deploy military force in the Arctic to defend its interests. Global warming at the North Pole is making the region the object of growing desire for control. It is said to have around 20% of world gas and oil reserves still to be discovered. The thaw will facilitate the exploitation of these reserves and open an East/West shipping route, meaning that freight ships will have thousands of kilometres less to travel - but with heavy consequences on the environment.
The resolution for which the vote has been postponed until the session in May strengthens some of the affirmations already contained in the earlier resolution of October 2008 (EUROPE 9760). First of all, it points out that the existence of different jurisdictions in the Arctic region could cause major conflicts to arise between countries hoping to protect their national interests, including militarily. The text therefore calls for a new international treaty based on the Antarctic Treaty, in order to make the Arctic a peaceful zone likely to become a source of energy supply, which can fully develop on the basis of environmental sustainability. Council President Alexandr Vondra, however, in agreement with the Commission, does not support the idea of an international treaty but defends “multilateral government based on the existing legal framework”. Specific adjustments for the Arctic or extensions of the current international agreements could, however, be negotiated in order to impose binding environmental norms respectful of native populations. The Council president recommended an “exhaustive trans-sectoral approach” by the EU towards the Arctic, bearing in mind the security, energy, environmental, maritime and human dimensions.
Wishing to go still further, MEPs also want the Council and Commission to undertake to “set in place a moratorium on exploitation of the Arctic's geological resources over 50 years pending new scientific studies”. Ms Ferrero-Waldner nonetheless rejected the option which she finds “unrealistic” because natural resources are part of the territorial sovereignty of the Arctic states that have exclusive right of exploitation. Along the lines of the November 2008 communication (EUROPE 9787), she reaffirmed the “absolute priority” granted to protection of the environment without, however, ruling out the sustainable use of Arctic resources. Avril Doyle considers a 50-year moratorium “is not practical” and “should be limited in time”. Johannes Lebech (ALDE, Denmark) admits the moratorium is “unrealistic as Russia will never give its agreement” and because it is necessary to “take into account the natural right of the peoples of Greenland to use the resources on their territory”.
On the subject of Russia, precisely, the resolution invites the Commission to begin talks with Russian authorities in order to ensure freedom of navigation and right of passage, as well as the abolition of discriminatory practice. Many MEPs have, moreover, asked for the Arctic to be included on the agenda of the next EU-Russia summit. (Y.P./transl.jl)