The legitimacy of the Arctic related
policies of the European Union
Research proposal
Alejandro Olmos i Marcitllach
December, 2008
Word count: 3.410
The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i
Marcitllach
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Cristina Leston-Bandeira and Proffessor Lord Norton whose support
was essential to gain the chance of being placed in the European Parliament.
Thanks also to Gary Titley MEP for first encouraging me to focus the research in the
very exciting topic of the EU-Arctic relations. To Stewart Arnolds for arranging the
interview with Diana Wallis MEP and the presentation with Jaime Reynolds - who
contributed to this study by providing the expertise viewpoint. To Hossain Kamrul
for organising a fantastic conference and taking into consideration the ideas
presented in this paper.
Finally, big thanks to Madlen Haupt for her indispensable help with reading, the
checking and correcting of the following text.
December 2008,
Alejandro Olmos i Marcitllach
2
The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i
Marcitllach
Index
1. Introduction p.5
1.1. The Arctic Region p.5
1.2. The Arctic Region and the EU p.5
1.3. The Arctic Governance p.6
1.3.1 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea p.6
1.3.2 The Arctic Council p.7
1.3.3 The Nordic Dimension p.7
1.4 The Clash of EU interests with other stakeholders p.8
1.4.1 Canada p.9
1.4.2 United States of America p.9
1.4.3. Russia p.9
1.4.4 Norway p.10
1.4.5 Denmark p.10
2. Research hypothesis p.11
2.1. The importance of the legitimacy question p.11
2.2. Three different sources of legitimacy p.11
3. Objectives and research methodology p.12
3
The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i
Marcitllach
List of Abbreviations
MEP Member of the European Parliament
US United States of America
IPPC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ACIA Arctic Climate Impact Assesment
EU European Union
EC European Commission
DG Mare EC’s Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries
UNCLOS The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
UK United Kingdom
AEPS Environmental Protection Strategy
DG ENVI European Commission's Environment Directorate-General
4
The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i
Marcitllach
1. Introduction
1.1 The Arctic Region
According to the US Geological Survey report1 (SOURCE NEEDED), the Arctic
conceals over 20 % of the world’s undiscovered gas and oil resources. Over the
past 50 years, its air temperature has increased by twice the global average2
(SOURCE NEEDED),, with 2007 as the warmest year on record for the Arctic3
(SOURCE NEEDED) and the lowest level of sea ice in modern history4 (US
Department of Defence, YEAR). On 15 September 2007, the Arctic ice cap was 22%
below the last record set in 2005. This 2007 record exceeded the computer model
predictions used to prepare the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in 2007. Perhaps even more important than ice-
coverage as such, is the increasing percentage of first-year sea-ice. Indeed In 2004
the (ACIA) Arctic Climate Impact Assessment study5 did forecast a 7 Celsius
degrees temperature rise by the end of the present century (SOURCE
NEEDED) and other studies (SOURCE NEEDED) do work with the hypothesis that by
2040 the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free during the summer months.
1
U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008-3049, Kenneth J. Bird, Ronald R. Charpentier, Donald L. Gautier (CARA Project Chief), David W.
Houseknecht, Timothy R. Klett, Janet K. Pitman, Thomas E. Moore, Christopher J. Schenk, Marilyn E. Tennyson, and Craig J. Wandrey; Edited by
Peter H. Stauffer. Washington, 2008.
2
Arctic Report Card 2008, J. Richter-Menge, J. Overland, M. Svoboda, J. Box, M.J.J.E. Loonen, A. Proshutinsky, V. Romanovsky, D. Russell, C.D.
Sawatzky, M. Simpkins, R. Armstrong, I. Ashik, L.-S. Bai, D. Bromwich, J. Cappelen, E. Carmack, J. Comiso, B. Ebbinge, I. Frolov, J.C. Gascard, M.
Itoh, G.J. Jia, R. Krishfield, F. McLaughlin, W. Meier, N. Mikkelsen, J. Morison, T. Mote, S. Nghiem, D. Perovich, I. Polyakov, J.D. Reist, B. Rudels,
U. Schauer, A. Shiklomanov, K . Shimada, V. Sokolov, M. Steele, M.-L. Timmermans, J. Toole, B. Veenhuis, D. Walker, J. Walsh, M. Wang, A.
Weidick, C. Zöckler. 2008
3
Cfr. Footnote 2
4
Fetterer, F., and K. Knowles. 2002, updated 2008. Sea ice index. Boulder, CO: National Snow and Ice. Data Center. Digital media.
5
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment - Scientific Report. Jim Berner, Terry V. Callaghan, Shari Fox and others. 2005, Cambridge University Press
5
The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i
Marcitllach
1.2 The Arctic Region and the EU
Due to the ice melting, the Northern Sea route has been navigable for the first time
since last year6. (SOURCE NEEDED). Thus, according to the EU Fisheries and
maritime Affairs Commissioner Joe Borg, speaking last September to a Conference
of the Nordic Council in Ilulissat, Greenland could offer a “first time opportunity”
(SOURCE NEEDED)7 to use new trade routes and massive energetic resources.
Exploitation of these resources was of great interest for Europe and ensuring its
equal access would be a top priority for the Commission. Nonetheless, this situation
will raise undoubtedly other increasing concerns.
In March 2008 the EU’s chief of foreign policy, Javier Solana, distributed a
statement on the security implications of Climate Change to the members of the EU
Council 8. (SOURCE NEEDED). Among other things, this paper titled ‘Climate
Change and International Security’ highlighted the upcoming issues caused by the
Arctic melting such as sea-level rises, new migratory flows, territorial disputes and
political radicalisation. Overall, opportunities and risks in which’s management the
EU certainly wants to have a say.
Also Additionally, the EU is developing its Arctic policy as part of its newly adopted
integrated maritime policy wherein the Commission (DG Mare) promises to produce
a report “on strategic issues relating to the Arctic Ocean” within the year 2008.9
Earlier last year Diana Wallis, vice President of the European Parliament, addressed
the Standing Committee of the Parliamentarians with the topic of the Arctic Region.
She argued10 (SOURCE NEEDED), that it was the time to go one step further than
the so called Arctic Window of the Northern Dimension in the EU involvement in the
Arctic. (SOURCE NEEDED). (EXPLANATION NEEDED) Her speech marked a linetook
a view which was followed adopted later on by others within the EU: There is no
need for new environmental legislation but for a better coordination with in new
frameworks. (SOURCE NEEDED)
6
Northeast and Northwest Passages Both Free of Ice, 08/28/2008, Die Spiegel.
7
The Arctic: a matter of concern to us all. Speech by Commissioner Joe Borg at the Conference: "Common Concern for the Arctic", Ilulissat,
Greenland, 9 September 2008
8
Report 7249/08 of the Council of the European Union, on Climate change and international security by the Commission and the Secretary-
General/High Representative. March 2008.
9
The adopted integrated maritime policy provides states in section 4.4. that “[a]Attention will also be given to the geopolitical implications
of climate change. In this context, the Commission will present in 2008 a report on strategic issues relating to the Arctic Ocean”. See at [Link]
[Link]/LexUriServ/[Link]?uri=COM:2007:0575:FIN:EN:PDF. .
10
Speech by Diana Wallis MEP, Vice-President of the European Parliament, at the Standing Committee of the Parliamentarians of the Arctic
Region,Rovaniemi Finland 28th February 2008
6
The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i
Marcitllach
A recently published European Commission’s communication11 (SOURCE NEEDED)
aims to define the role that the EU wants to play in the future of the region.
The communication calls for measures such as the creation of new research
infrastructure, screening and monitoring of chemicals, increased cooperation on
prevention, preparedness and disaster response, engagement of Arctic indigenous
peoples in a regular dialogue, extension of existing regulatory framework on
fisheries to the Arctic, improvement of maritime surveillance, the setting of a
regulatory framework on fishing for the part of the Arctic high seas not yet covered
by an international regime of conservation and management, promoting full
implementation of the existing rules and enhancing environmental and safety
standards of the International Maritime Organisation or enhancing Arctic
multilateral governance. (SOURCE NEEDED). However it does not take up the
Parliament’s call12 (SOURCE NEEDED) to open international negotiations designed to
lead to the adoption of an international treaty. (SOURCE NEEDED)
11
Communication, COM(2008) 763, The European Union and the Arctic Region, from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council.
December 2008, Brussels.
12
European Parliament resolution, P6_TA(2008)0474, of 9 October 2008 on Arctic governance.
7
The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i
Marcitllach
1.3 The Arctic Governance
1.3.1 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
The case of the Arctic governance is complex and unique. The United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)13, ratified by more than 150
countries14 , (SOURCE NEEDED), is currently the most accepted arrangement that
rules the handling of the (?) Arctic Region. The Convention statescontains at least
three relevant points: it allows signatories to develop special legislation to protect
ice-covered water, appoints a competent authority (International Seabed Authority)
with capacity to sanction unlawful exploration and mining and delimits an Exclusive
Economic Zone for the boundary states. (SOURCE NEEDED)
Under the UNCLOS the coastal states (Canada, Russia, Norway, Denmark and USA)
have ten years since from its ratification on to make claims to extend its 200 miles
exclusive economic zone (SOURCE NEEDED).. The UN LOS Convention also
recognizes the sovereignty of a coastal state over its internal waters, archipelagic
waters and territorial sea, the airspace above and its bed and subsoil. Sovereignty
entails exclusive access and control of living and non-living resources and all-
encompassing jurisdiction over all human activities, unless states have in one way
or another consented to restrictions thereon.15 (SOURCE NEEDED).
But even if no country owes by itself the North Pole or the surrounding Arctic Ocean
there are institutional frameworks that attempt to govern it.
1.3.1 2 The Arctic Council
The Arctic Council is an intergovernmental body that brings together
representatives of indigenous communities and fourteen nations, of which 8 eight
(Canada – in representation of the Northwest territories, Nunavut and Yukon,
Denmark – in representation of the autonomies of Greenland and the Faroe Islands,
United States – in representation of the State of Alaska, Sweden, Russia, Norway,
Iceland and Finland) are full members and 6 six observers (the United Kingdom in
representation of the country of Scotland, Spain, Poland, Netherlands, Germany
and France) observers who are increasingly demanding a better position in the
Council.16. (SOURCE NEEDED) However the Council not only does not havelacks
binding powers but also does noat have a permanent secretariat with full- time
dedicated stuff.
Previously, in 1991, the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS, 1991) was
established by the so called A5 (the group of five countries that encircle the North
Pole) plus Iceland, Finland and Sweden as a cooperation forum to identify the
environmental threats that these states face. More importantly the AEPS holds a
number of expertise working groups such as the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment
Programme or the Conservation of the Arctic Flora and Fauna.
13
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982
14
Consolidated Table recapitulating the status of the Convention and of the related Agreements, as at 7 November 2008.
[Link] . Acceded November 2008.
15
Cfr. Footnote 14
16
See at [Link]
8
The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i
Marcitllach
Two years later, in 1993, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and the
European Commission together with Russia established the Barents Euro-Arctic
Council. The BEAC, given that Canada and the US are only observatinger members,
mainly attempts to strengthen the cooperation between the EU and Russia by first
incorporating Russia in a multilateral body body for the first time after the fall
breakdown of the Soviet Union.
The Council of the Baltic Sea States and the Nordic Council of Ministers are as well
two additional relevant regional Councils. However to investigate the the as for the
history of the EU-Russia involvement in the Area area we must lookhave to turn to
the Northern Dimension.
1.3.31 The Nordic Dimension
The Finish and Swedish accession to the EU in 1991 substantially increased the
Northern presence of the Union. The meeting of the European Council in December
1997, held in (Luxembourg) in December 1997, sketched for the first time17
sketched the Northern (SOURCE NEEDED) Dimension framework. Only a one year
later, in Vienna, the European Council adopted a Commission Communication calling
to settle a “Northern Dimension for the policies of the Union”. It was under the
German and Finish presidencies of the Union a year later when the concept became
more concretewas specified and a Ministerial Conference on the topic was held. In
2000, at the Feira meeting of the Council, an Action Plan 18 (SOURCE NEEDED)
based on a document drafted by the European Commission with the guidelines for
the implementation of the Nordic Dimension was adopted.
At the 2002 ministerial meeting in Luxembourg the guidelines for a Second
Northern Dimension Action Plan were adopted the guidelines for a Second Northern
Dimension Action Plan, which were impulse by the Danish government at the
ministerial meeting held in Illulisaat, Greenland.
A One year later the second Nordic Dimension Action Plan was adopted. And
laterBuilt on these first Action Plans, on the 2007 declaration established a
permanent tool shared by its members - Norway, Iceland, the Russian Federation
and the European Commission - that aims to “reaffirm their responsibility for the
prosperity of Northern Europe, its sustainable development and the well-being of its
population”19 . (SOURCE NEEDED). It intends to make the best of the rich potential
of the region and to avoid new dividing lines in Europe by addressing its challenges
as the living standards disparities. However tThe Nordic Dimension policy,
increasingly with special regardfocused in on to North West Russia, is however
mainly an economic cooperation and integration body seeking to maximise the
human and financial resources in the region (SOURCE NEEDED) on the basis of the
subsidiary principle between national and regional authorities.
Nevertheless, the Nordic Dimension also focuses in on the areas of a) Freedom,
Security and Justice, b) External Security and c) Research, education and culture.
In addition, two partnerships – the Northern Environmental Partnership and the
17
Presidency Concussions of the Luxembourg European Council, 12-13 December 1997
[Link] Acceded November 2008
18
Presidency Conclusions of the Santa Maria de Feira European Council, 19-20 June 2000.
[Link] Acceded November 2008
19
Political Declaration on the Northern Dimension Policy, Joint Press Release on the IV Northern Dimension Ministerial Meeting, 2007.
9
The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i
Marcitllach
Northern Dimension Partnership in Public health Health and Social Well Being –
work as institutional cooperation frameworks within the Nordic Dimension.
Recently theThe climate change and the melting of the Arctic are becoming recently
new focus core topics of this complex relationship. In this context we find the above
mentioned Arctic Window, a political space within the Nordic Dimension designed
for the cooperation between the EU and the Arctic States.
10
The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i
Marcitllach
1.4 The EU clash of EU interests with other stakeholders
Certainly further implication involvement/commitment of the EU in the Arctic is
generally welcomed by its member states and other regional stakeholders.
However, even if as proof in the previous section the EU has a long track involving
other countries in regional as proved in the previous section, some voices suggest
that there is an increasing risk of a potential clash of interests in the area.
According to some scholars20 (SOURCE NEEDED) this the increasing importance of
the region in terms of’s geopolitical geopolitics and geo-economics importance could
lead to the emergence of a new “great game”. (SOURCE NEEDED). Indeed when
last year a Russian expedition placed a titanium Russian flag on the seabed under
the North Pole, many observers (SOURCE NEEDED) feared the beginning of an
increasing militarisation of the Arctic region.
1.4.1 Canada
For instance, CCanada responded to the above mentionedse events with the
mobilization of a vast military contingent in order to be ready for any possible
challenge to Canada’s sovereignty in the area. Nevertheless Ottawa is not only
concerned about the protection of its Exclusive Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). A
major issue is the Northwest maritime passage, given the fact that it is becoming
ice-free and both the EU and the US do not recognise Canada’s sovereignty over
the route21. (SOURCE NEEDED)
However, Canada interest in the area, as most of the other regional actors,
interest in the area is nothing new. Back in 1909 Canada accused Inuits of
murdering members of a Polar expedition; as a consequence of this Ottawa self
extended its jurisdiction and consequently claimed territorial rights in the North
Pole. Since then until nowadays Canada has been one of the most active players in
the region.
1.4.2 United States of America
The case of the United States is a quite particular one. Although its first claim over
the Arctic dates back to 1924 a legal request in 1924 over the coastline of Alaska,
Washington is the only Arctic Coastal state that did not ratify the UNCLOS. Recently
former President George W. Bush called for the ratification of the treaty22 (SOURCE
NEEDED) as many advisers argued, that the US should claim the extension of its
EEZ and take part in future negotiations – especially since regarding Russia’s recent
moves in the area.
Presumably the incoming American President Barack Obama will follow this line
towards a multilateral cooperation. However some observers remain sceptical as
20
I.e. As the Arctic ice retreats, the old Great Game begins to boil over, Ben Macintyre, The Times, February 11 2006, London
21
U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, during the U.S. Strategy in the Arctic: Energy, Security, and the Geopolitics of the High North conference organised
by Center for Strategic & International Studies on July 23, 2008.
22
[Link] Acceded December 2008
11
The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i
Marcitllach
the Senate could again vote againstdecline the ratification of the UNCLOS arguing
expressing concerns over about the limitations that the UNCLOS could impose on
the US freedom of actions.
In the same way that Canada did, the United States responded toreacted on the
Russian expedition that placed a flag in the North Pole. In August a bill was passed
giving conceding $8eight billion dollars in order to increase the number of Coast
Guard officers and soldiers in the Arctic surroundings.
1.4.3 Russia
We have already seen mentioned some of the consequences of the expedition to
the Lomonosov Ridge, which Moscow considers as an extension of the continental
platform of Siberia. But the real implication of the expedition in 2007 leaded led in
2007 by the Vice Speaker of the Russian Duma, Artur Chilingarov, is the informal
claim of the sovereignty over 45% of the Arctic which Russia is determined to
obtain by any means.
However other disputes need to be resolved earlier as already. In 2001 Russia
requested the United Nations Under under the UNCLOS, in 2001 Russia requested
to the United Nations the extendsion of the limits of the Continental Shelf23 that
would lead to extend an extension of its EEZ as well.
1.4.4 Norway
Is It is precisely with Norway that Russia maintains one if its most litigious
relations. Despite of the 1920’s Treaty of Paris24 (SOURCE NEEDED) which gave
sovereignty to Oslo over the Spitsbergen Island in the Svaldbard archipelago,
Russia still claims the right to develop economic and trade activities in the area.
Although it is expected that the UN Commission will find reach a compromise
between both nations, it is also expected that this it will still be require a hard
battle in the near future, especially due to the fact given that this 176,000 square
kilometre area could be the key to the an enormous future hydrocarbon production.
1.4.5 Denmark
Also Denmark is currently involved in disputes with Russia regarding the territorial
soveraignity sovereignty of certain areas of the Arctic, .since i In 2007 sent an
expedition was sent to stock up evidences that the Lomonosov Ridge is indeed a
natural extension of Greenland.
23
On December 20, 2001, Russia Submitted to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) in accordance with Article 76(8)
of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
24
Treaty concerning the Archipelago of Spitsbergen, and Protocol, Paris, 9 February 1920
12
The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i
Marcitllach
Denmark is as well one of the few only neighbours seeking stronger regional
cooperation. However the Copenhagen government organised an Arctic Conference
in which only the A5 countries were present. Despite of the recent referendum in
which Greenland gained more autonomy 25(SOURCE NEEDED), Denmark is often
discordant with EU policies given the particular necessities of the local communities
of Greenland.
Is becauseDue to all these divergent interests metioned above, any European
moves usually raise the suspicion of that other stakeholders usually fear any
European moves, which often regard them seen as an attempt to unilaterally
introduce new regulation in the area. In thisUnder these circumstances the question
is raised: does Does the European Union has any legitimacy to adopt its own
policies regarding the Arctic? And if so, where does this legitimacy ends?
25
A non-binding referendum on Greenland's autonomy was held on 25 November 2008
13
The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i
Marcitllach
Research hypothesis
2.1 The importance of the legitimacy question
The classical analysis by Max Webber distinguished26 (SOURCE NEEDED) between
two kinds of legitimacy in politics, substantive and procedural. This impliesMeaning
that the acts of the a government can be legitimated either for what they achieve
(substantive) or for how they do itare achieved (procedural).
Although an abstract concept, political legitimacy is of high importance to the
policy-making process. As professor Christopher Lord from the Leeds University
argues27, (SOURCE NEEDED) “[…]legitimacy concerns to the acceptability of policy
to the public. It, therefore, goes to the heart of whether institutions of government
can get their way. Without widely agreed views of who has a right to make public-
binding decisions, when and how, governing bodies find it difficult to achieve the
un-forced cooperation of citizens. Furthermore when talking about the EU policy-
making process each level of government –supranational, national and sub-
national- is increasingly implicated in the legitimacy of each other.”
Given that, despite of the recently announced intentions of Iceland28 to join the EU,
none of the current EU Member States are costal states (SOURCE NEEDED)
(ICELAND ACCESS) respect to the Arctic Ocean (since Greenland chose in the mid
1980’s to withdraw from the EEC);, there are several reasons to expect legitimacy
to be a tough problem for the EU in developing its Arctic-related policies.
However through the following pages we will consider and analyse three different
groups of factors that provide either substantial or procedural legitimacy. And
therefore eventually it will be argued that the EU is indeed a fully legitimated actor
in the making process of the Arctic-related-policies.
26
P. 3, Legitimacy, Democracy and the EU: when abstract questions become practical policy problems, page 1, Dr. Christopher Lord, Universty of
Leeds, 1998
27
Legitimacy, Democracy and the EU: when abstract questions become practical policy problems, page 3, Dr. Christopher Lord, Universty of Leeds,
1998
28
On 30 October 2008, Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir, minister of education said that "Iceland has to define its long-term national interests and part
of that is a revision of the currency regime, including a possible EU application". [Link]
Acceded, December 2008
14
The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i
Marcitllach
2.2 Three different sources of legitimacy
Firstly we will examine the existing legislation on trade, defence and environmental
preservation as well as the current policy framework for the EU-Arctic relations.
Given that the competence on environmental protection is currently shared
between the EU (EC) and its Member member States states we will search for into
national, subnational and supranational elements. By reviewing the history of the
EU – Arctic relationship we will present the current involvement of the EU
involvement in the Arctic region as a logic consequence of its own evolution.
Later we will contemplate the EU as an interested part in future scenarios. This will
be a threefold approach as we will study the risks (EU as an involuntary affected
regional actor), opportunities (EU as an international player in a global scenario)
and responsibilities (EU as a global polluter) faces faced in the changing Arctic
region.
Finally we will focus in on the democratic mandate by the citizens of the European
Union expressed through the European Parliament.
15
The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i
Marcitllach
3.
4. Objectives and Research Methodology
The overall aim of this paper is to analyse the legitimacy of the Arctic related
policies of the European Union and to estimate the future scenarios for the EU –
Arctic relations. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to critically analyse the
status quo of the European Union involvement in the Arctic region, to identify the
current challenges of this relationship and to draw conclusions with respect to the
future.
In order to achieve these goals the research was based on both primary and
secondary data.
Given the polyhedric nature of the topic, it was necessary to study a wide range of
written documents on the different aspects that matter toare relevant for the
research. Not only books but academic journals or and publications authorised by
national governments, policy platforms, nongovernmental organisations and
European institutions were taken into account.
For example, while quantitative data from governmental and intergovernmental
agencies was used to measure the impact of climate change on the Arctic region,;
publications authorised by environmentalist nongovernmental organisations such as
the WWF helped to acquire a better understanding of its consequences.
In this respect regard we need to stick up forstate that the EU’s transparency with
offersas, despite of its bad reputation, the possibility to publicly access all its
working documents was a cornerstone of the research.
However due to the lack of literature answering to the very concrete dilemma
presented in this research, it was very useful to read literature on other cases
where similar questions on the EU’s competence were raised.
Furthermore, given the high profile of this topic within the current political agenda,
several seminars and events around the topic were held over the past months in
Brussels and Strasbourg. The attendance to some of these events was extremely
useful for the research as it granted access to primary information on the ongoing
negotiations. Additionally it also offered a unique opportunity for the understanding
of the policy decision making process.
A good example of this was the ‘petite comité’ briefing (Brussels, 4th November
2008) prior to the publication of the Commission’s communication on the Arctic by
Jaime Reynolds of DGENVI (EC’s Directorate General responsible for environment)
that Stewart Arnold arranged for the Hull University students placed in Brussels.
In a different seminar (Brussels, 18th November 2008) organised by the European
Policy Centre, János Herman, also from DGENVI, explained Commission’s core
proposals and its viewpoint on why the EU is “natural and legitimate player”.
This seminar also provided an excellent opportunity to get to knowan idea
about from a closer perspective the main points of viewconcerns of other
stakeholders. For example, Wwhilst the Norway’s Ambassador to the
European Union, Oda Helen Sletnes, welcomed more EU involvement; Lars
Vesterbirk, Counsellor of the Representation of Greenland to the European
Union, was very critic with the EU’s involvement. as aAccording to him it
only resulted from the new opportunities to access new transportation
routes and hydro-carbon fields.
16
The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i
Marcitllach
A very different perspective, the economical one, was presented (Brussels,
18th November 2008) by the Centre for European Policy Studies study on
“defining the financial architecture of the new international climate change regime”.
Only two days later the first meeting of the PSE (Socialist Group in the European
Parliament) on the Arctic later took place in Strasbourg the first meeting of the PSE
(Socialist Group in the European Parliament) on the Arctic.
Probably the highest pitch of the research was the experts workshop hosted by the
Stichting University on the 4th and 5th of December. This two-day seminar aimed to
understand and strengthen the EU-Canada Relation in the Law of the Sea and
Ocean Governance. Twenty-nine experts highlighted areas of convergence and
divergence of interests and practices. Those uses include: aquaculture, fisheries,
shipping, bio-diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, renewable energy
production (for example, offshore wind farms and tidal power), seabed activities
(minerals and hydrocarbons) and ocean disposal.
Finally in December an in-depth interview with Diana Wallis was conducted. This
was the starting point of a series of interviews that will take place between
December 2008 and November January 2009 with a number of Liberal, Socialist,
Conservative and Green Members of the European Parliament. These interviews
aimed to identify the different political approaches towards the EU-Arctic relations.
17
