Should we write a petition to the Arctic Council

[etienne]

In the "The EU and the Arctic Council"
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2316.0.html
There was a discussion about the fact that the EU would like to become an observer. There were many comments saying that the Arctic Council didn't do as much as it could to protect the Arctic, that it looks sometimes more like a business club if I may say it that way (this is a provocative way to turn it). So I suggested to write a petition.

I believe that the best way to write a petition is to express concerns and point out issues that require solutions, but that solutions should not be suggested otherwise many people might not participate because they don't agree with at least one of the solutions.

I also believe that it should not be an ASIF petition, but a petition of members that get together. I think that the ASIF has to stay neutral.

If you are interested in the concept of a petition to some or all members of the Arctic Council, please add a comment to say what you would like to see as main topics in such a petition, who you would want to receive it, how we should write it...

Inside the topic, I suggested different points to be put in the petition :
    CO2 emission and climate change
    Pollution from ships crossing the Artic
    Pollution from natural ressources mining
    Pollution from rivers entering in the Artic

But I really am not a specialist, last time I was in the Arctic was in 2003 in Greenland, just for holidays. Somebody else would have to write the letter because I don't have the scientific knowledge for that.

Don't know if opening markets to native products should be discussed, there was a comment about the seal products ban in the EU, which destroyed a good part of the Nunavut economy. If yes, this has to be clearly in a sustainable manner otherwise this would stop many people from signing the petition. I don’t want to support moves to reopen hunting of endangered species, but I bought seals gloves in 2003 and still have them,it was a very good quality. My wife wasn’t so happy when I bought these.

Here is also the website of the Arctic Council : http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/

Etienne

[TerryM]

Would depoliticizing the Arctic Council be worthy of mention?
Terry

[etienne]

Here is more or less how I would write such a letter :

Dear Members of the Arctic Council,

We, some members of the Arctic Sea Ice Forum, have decide to write you an open letter that anybody sharing our worries for this part of the world can sign in order to publicly inform you. We love and find the Arctic so beautiful, we believe the Arctic is strategical for the climate of the earth, so we really want that things change.

The Arctic is a very sensitive area that becomes every year more accessible because of climate change. We would like to remind you of the Exxon Valdes and Deep Horizon catastrophes. We believe that you are one of the places with a natural authority to make rules that would avoid similar issues in the Arctic. Doesn't matter if petrol, chemicals, manufactured goods... would be spread in the nature, it would take years, maybe a half century to be able to go back to the previous situation. Climate change making weather pattern less predictable and more extreme, the presence of industries and transport activities in the Arctic will present a greater risk in the future.

We also believe that you are in a very good position to inform the States and organizations with an observer status in your council of the evolution of the Arctic, to ask them to act in order to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, to limit air and water pollution.

We have noted for example ...

The Arctic is a limited area with limited resources due to extreme weather conditions. Protection of nature has to include protection of the different form of life in order to insure that each species can keep its living areas.

In this context, examples would be...

Finally, we would like to stress the right of the native population to have the right to be integrated in the world economy in a sustainable way. History is full of stories where nature and native populations were abused. We believe that you could be a place to discuss and define an economy that would be fair for humans and nature in the Arctic.

We thank you very much for your attention and would be greatly thankful if you could help  us and the other organization trying to protect the Arctic.

Best regards,

[etienne]

To be honest, I'm a little bit disapointed by the result of this poll. Not by the given answers, but by the number of people who gave an answer. I didn’t expect to have thousand participants, but here we are here under 1% of the members. I also expected that more people would suggest things to be written in a petition. During the time the poll was open, there were about 20 different people who made a comment in the « Cars, cars and more cars. And Trucks and… » topic. Here we have 10 people who participated in the poll, and two among them made comments.
For me, this closes the petition topic because it doesn’t make sense to start any kind of petition if there are not enough people to talk about it around them, it could even be counterproductive because it would gives the feeling that people don’t care about what’s written in the petition.

I guess, like two people said, the ASIF is not the right place to do this kind of work. It is a great place to share knowledge and experiences, to stay up to date... I learn a lot here and am happy to share my experiences. Many thanks to all of you, and  more specifically to Neven who, if I’m right, created it and manages it. I also enjoy very much the Arctic Sea Ice Blog and the monthly update because I don't have time to follow all he time the discussions about the Arctic sea ice.

[Neven]

I'm sorry too that this kind of thing doesn't garner more enthusiasm, but speaking for myself, the reason I didn't say anything or vote, is that I feel I would have to take the lead or responsibility (or maybe I think people would expect it of me), and I don't have the time or energy right now.

Anyway, the idea is good. So, maybe in the future...

[oren]

As one of the people who did vote, my problem with the idea, though I support it, is that in my experience petitions of any kind don't have any effects whatsoever. And the body it was supposed to be submitted to did not strike me as relevant to anything. But that could be just my ignorance.  As my experience is admittedly limted, I did support it, but maybe lots of others share my basic feelings on the subject.

[Pmt111500]

Well, read the proposed text and didn't see anything in there that would have an effect to the reason, which is a very limited supply, of politicians tied to Arctic Council. 'But the economy, You see...", Is the standard reply (remembering the few reports of scientists as visiting speakers, no effect whatsoever to the politics of the larger parties, well, a new shipping route got some mentions as did the 'expansion' of fisheries as the ice vanishes.

[gerontocrat]

The Arctic Council is not the only player in the game of screwing up the Arctic Ocean, and may be the least effective.

The International Seabed Authority controls all the deep-sea mining in international waters (i.e. beyond the 200 mile limit. (isa.org)

This is supported by "MIDAS", funded by the EU. (http://eu-midas.net/about).

The MIDAS Consortium

The MIDAS partnership comprises 32 organisations from across Europe, including research institutes, universities, specialist SMEs and industry partners. This partnership brings together a wealth of scientific expertise in deep-sea biology, ecology, biochemistry, oceanography, geology and geochemistry to work alongside specialists in marine policy, environmental regulation and legislation. A critical component of the partnership is the expertise in deep-sea exploitation operations and technologies brought by our industry partners, who will also drive the engagement with other commercial stakeholders in the offshore sector.

Objectives

MIDAS has an ambitious set of objectives, aimed at building the knowledge base to underpin sound environmental policies in relation to deep-sea exploitation:

-To identify the scale of possible impacts, and their duration, on deep-sea ecosystems associated with different types of resource extraction activities;
-To develop workable solutions and best practice codes for environmentally sound and socially acceptable commercial activities;
-To develop cost-effective technologies for monitoring the impacts of mineral exploitation and the subsequent recovery of ecosystems;
-To work with policy makers in the European and international arenas to enshrine best practice in international and national regulations and overarching legal frameworks.

In addition, MIDAS has three cross-cutting themes relating to the three principal resource types in the deep-sea environment, and serve to provide a common thread through all the work packages:
- Polymetallic sulphides (Theme Leader: Sven Petersen, GEOMAR)
- Rare Earth Elements (Theme Leader: Rachael James, NOC)
- Gas hydrates (Theme Leader: Nabil Sultan, Ifremer)

There are 27 contractors with exploration licenses- I understand none have been refused. So far none in the Arctic (yet)..

But - wait for it - China claims breakthrough in mining 'flammable ice', i.e. gas hydrates. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-39971667). The article refers to the South China Sea - but China - partnership already with Russia on LNG - shallow East Siberian Arctic Shelf with loads of gas hydrates?
and:-
https://arctic.ru/analitic/20151126/241782.html

[P-maker]

Having had some years experience with the inner workings of the Arctic Council, I would tend to agree that this may not be the most dynamic institution to approach. Having also seeen the rising of the socalled Arctic Five group over the years with a clear exploitation agenda, I still have my doubts whether these countries bordering the Arctic will ever agree on anything substantial.

Als realizing that methane hydrates may be more easily available in most other oceans than the Arctic, I really have my doubts that anyone will ever go there for purely commercial reasons to extract the stuff, when we might have amble solar, wind and geothermal resources available at affordable prices.

 

[gerontocrat]

Als realizing that methane hydrates may be more easily available in most other oceans than the Arctic, I really have my doubts that anyone will ever go there for purely commercial reasons to extract the stuff, when we might have amble solar, wind and geothermal resources available at affordable prices.

You are applying logic and reason where often blind short-term interest applies, e.g. Canada pushing ahead with expanding production from oil sands and buying a clapped out pipeline for 4.5 billion from Kinder-Morgan.

There is a lot of methane at and just below the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf at <10 m depth. The Russkies are looking at it with greedy eyes.

[etienne]

As one of the people who did vote, my problem with the idea, though I support it, is that in my experience petitions of any kind don't have any effects whatsoever. And the body it was supposed to be submitted to did not strike me as relevant to anything. But that could be just my ignorance.  As my experience is admittedly limted, I did support it, but maybe lots of others share my basic feelings on the subject.

Well, I see petitions as stones in the shoes, even if it doesn't stop you, its annoying and makes it more complicated to go forward. Maybe some extra security measures would be added, or there would be some delay, or some products might not be allowed to be shipped through the Arctic, or people make statements that can be used against them when further decisions have to be taken… it doesn’t make miracles, but it can help. I don’t know the Arctic council, but its aims sound good.
https://arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us
The interesting thing with it is that the petition would not be against it, but to tell how important it is that the aims are reached.