Picture yourself when you were around 6-8 years old, playing with a couple of your friends. And next to you and your friends there is a TALL cupboard, very far from your reach. And right at the top there is a white teddy bear. But you all want it. Despite it being so far, you fight, and argue about who gets to keep the teddy, when there are clearly other toys surrounding you. Well this is my take on the issue of the governance to the Arctic.
The Arctic region is on the verge of a transformation, with increasing impacts through human interaction and driving forces of climate change. UNEP notes, that the melting ice in the Arctic allows for greater human exploitation. Despite it becoming an economic hub, it devastates the isolated region. The vast white lands of the Arctic have been claimed by Russia, Norway, United States, Canada and Denmark through the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In order to address the issues of the Arctic, eight countries form the Arctic Council. One of the primary roles of the council is to address environmental protection and sustainable development (UNEP, 2013). There is an ongoing debate regarding the capabilities of the Arctic Council and the future of this council. On one hand critics argue that the Arctic council is a body that will help to resolve issues and develop strategies to mitigate the impacts to the Arctic. While on the other hand, they point out that the growing political tension between the Arctic council countries will target the effectiveness of the council overall (Kankaanpaa & Young, 2011).
The Arctic region is on the verge of a transformation, with increasing impacts through human interaction and driving forces of climate change. UNEP notes, that the melting ice in the Arctic allows for greater human exploitation. Despite it becoming an economic hub, it devastates the isolated region. The vast white lands of the Arctic have been claimed by Russia, Norway, United States, Canada and Denmark through the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In order to address the issues of the Arctic, eight countries form the Arctic Council. One of the primary roles of the council is to address environmental protection and sustainable development (UNEP, 2013). There is an ongoing debate regarding the capabilities of the Arctic Council and the future of this council. On one hand critics argue that the Arctic council is a body that will help to resolve issues and develop strategies to mitigate the impacts to the Arctic. While on the other hand, they point out that the growing political tension between the Arctic council countries will target the effectiveness of the council overall (Kankaanpaa & Young, 2011).
But the situation gets a tad bit more complicated. Singapore applied to be a permanent observer at the Artic Council. The Economist called the application as a “small event that gives you mental whiplash”. I know... Singapore is smack at the equator, far from either of the poles. Well the answer lies in the melting ice caps, as more ice melts a new trade route forms, threatening Singapore’s reputation as a global shipping hub. Recently, if you happen to pop by the book store, you will see books such as the “Artic Gold Rush”, or “The Scramble for the Artic”. Well this gold is the 13% of the undiscovered oil and 30% of gas waiting to be exploited. Each and every nation is trying to get some political say or some land or anything to do with Arctic to get hold of the gold.
But wasn’t this supposed to be about nature conservation? About preventing exploitations in the Arctic regions? Seems as if even environmental policies or initiatives have a hidden agenda behind them.
References:
Kankaanpää, P., & Young, O. R. (2012). The effectiveness of the Arctic Council. Polar Research, 31.
"The Roar of Ice Cracking." The Economist. February 2, 2013. Accessed October 4, 2015.
UNEP (2013) "New Awareness of and Opportunities for UNEP to Address Climate Change in the Arctic." UNEP. 2013. Accessed October 2, 2015. http://www.unep.org/gc/gc27/Docs/se/What Future for the Arctic.pdf.
But wasn’t this supposed to be about nature conservation? About preventing exploitations in the Arctic regions? Seems as if even environmental policies or initiatives have a hidden agenda behind them.
References:
Kankaanpää, P., & Young, O. R. (2012). The effectiveness of the Arctic Council. Polar Research, 31.
"The Roar of Ice Cracking." The Economist. February 2, 2013. Accessed October 4, 2015.
UNEP (2013) "New Awareness of and Opportunities for UNEP to Address Climate Change in the Arctic." UNEP. 2013. Accessed October 2, 2015. http://www.unep.org/gc/gc27/Docs/se/What Future for the Arctic.pdf.