Eplp 044

IUCN

Environmental
Law Programme

Arctic Legal Regime for

Environmental Protection
Linda Nowlan
IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 44

Partners
International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL)

– Towards Sustainable Development –
The International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL) was formed in 1969 in

New Delhi as a public interest organisation with the aims of encouraging
advice and assistance through its network, and of fostering the exchange
and dissemination of information on environmental law and policy and
among its elected members.
As a non-governmental organisation in consultative status with the United
Nations Economic and Social Council, ICEL has permanent representatives
at the UN offices in New York, Geneva and Vienna.
ICEL is a member of IUCN - The World Conservation Union and supports the
IUCN Environmental Law Programme.
West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation

West Coast Environmental Law strives to empower citizens to participate in
forming policy for, and making decisions about, protecting our environment.
From the local to international level, its work supports the right of the public
to have a voice in how we share our earth. Since 1974, it has been providing
free legal advice, advocacy, research and law reform services. And through
the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund, West Coast Environmental Law
has given away over $2,000,000 to hundreds of citizens’ groups across BC to
help them solve environmental problems in their own communities.
Linda Nowlan
West Coast Environmental Law
IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 44
IUCN - The World Conservation Union

2001
The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of
any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN or International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL) concerning the legal
status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers and boundaries.
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN or ICEL.
Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK in collaboration with

IUCN Environmental Law Centre, Bonn, Germany,
International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL), Bonn, Germany.
ICEL
Copyright: © 2001 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised

without prior permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior
written permission of the copyright holder.
Citation: Linda Nowlan (2001). Arctic Legal Regime for Environmental Protection. IUCN, Gland, Switzer-
land and Cambridge, UK and ICEL, Bonn, Germany. xii + 70 pp.
ISBN: 2-8317-0637-8
Cover design by: IUCN Environmental Law Centre
Cover photo:
Layout by: Barbara Weiner, Desktop Publications Co-ordinator
Produced by: IUCN Environmental Law Centre and International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL)
Printed by: Daemisch Mohr, Siegburg, Germany
Available from: IUCN Publications Services Unit

219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK
www.iucn.org/bookstore
or
IUCN Environmental Law Centre
Godesberger Allee 108-112, D-53175 Bonn, Germany
www.iucn.org/themes/law
A catalogue of IUCN publications is also available
The text of this book is printed on paper made from low chlorine pulp.
Table of Contents
Preface vii
Acknowledgments viii
Executive Summary ix
I. THE ARCTIC LEGAL REGIME – MOVING FROM ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION TO SUSTAINABILITY? 1
1. Unlike Antarctica, the Arctic is not a Nature Reserve 1
2. Adequacy of Current Environmental Legal Regime 2
II. THE CURRENT ARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL REGIME 2

1. The Arctic Region 2
1.1 Environmental Issues in the Arctic 3
2. The regional Legal Regime 4
2.1 Overview of Regime 5
2.2 Growth in Arctic Cooperation Initiatives 5
3. Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) 7
3.1 Evaluation of Effectiveness of AEPS 8
4. Arctic Council 9
4.1 Role of Indigenous People 10
4.2 Procedure of Council 11
4.3 Arctic council Working Groups 12
4.4 Evaluation of Effectiveness of Council 15
III. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND THE ARCTIC – APPLICABLE TREATIES

AND AGREEMENTS 16
1. Links between Arctic Environmental Issues and Global treaties and Agreements 16
2. Evaluations of Global Treaties and the Arctic Environment 17
3. Existing Global Agreements and the Arctic 18
3.1 Marine 18
3.2 Atmosphere 22
3.3 Biodiversity: Protection of Species and Ecosystems 26
3.4 Resource Extraction and Waste Disposal 35
3.5 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 37
3.6 Indigenous People and indigenous rights 38
3.7 Trade Agreements 39
4. Greater Use of Existing Global Agreements 39
IV. THE ANTARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL REGIME 40

1. The Antarctic 40
2. Overview of the Antarctic Treaty System 41
3. The Antarctic Treaty 42
4. The Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals (CCAS) 44
5. The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
(CCAMLR) 44
v
6. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty
(Protocol or Madrid Protocol) 1991 45
7. Contribution to International Law 47
V. COMPARISON OF POLAR ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL REGIMES 48

1. Relationship Between Two Polar Legal Regimes 48
2. Different Legal Treatment of Common Issues 49
2.1 Science 49
2.2 Territorial Sovereignty 49
2.3 National security 49
2.4 Environment 50
3. Evolution of Two Legal Systems 54
VI. NEED FOR REGIONAL ARCTIC AGREEMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION 55
1. Accelerating Arctic change 55
2. How well is the Arctic legal regime protecting the environment? 55
3. Regional Arctic environmental protection agreement 57
3.1 Advantages of an Arctic environmental treaty 58
3.2 Disadvantages of an Arctic environmental protection treaty 59
3.3 Potential Subjects for a new Agreement 60
4. Innovative Features for a new Treaty or Regional Agreement 62
4.1 Indigenous Participation 63
4.2 Co-management 63
4.3 Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) 63
4.4 Impact Benefit Agreements 64
4.5 Indigenous Knowledge and Intellectual property Rights 66
5. Conclusion 66
BIBLIOGRAPHY 67
vi
Preface
For many years, concerns have been expressed about environmental issues in the Arctic. This
interest was again evident during the World Conservation Congress 2000, when the IUCN member-
ship unanimously adopted a Resolution recognising the circumpolar Arctic as a priority ecosystem,
calling also for the preparation of an Arctic Strategy and Action Plan.
The publication presented here is intended to assist those working on the Arctic legal regime as
well as IUCN members concerned with the development of this Arctic strategy and plan. We are
very grateful to Linda Nowlan, who is both the Executive Director of the West Coast Environmen-
tal Law and a member of the IUCN Commission on Environmental Law, for providing this excel-
lent and comprehensive approach to the issues.
Recent science details the threats to this unique ecosystem. While the Arctic region – unlike
Antarctica – has been inhabited for thousands of years, it is under unique threat because of its
vulnerability toward resource exploitation and the deposition of various airborne pollutants. With
its varied populations, and with eight Nations asserting territorial interests, the Arctic needs a care-
ful approach to its protection and development. Various legal initiatives have arisen from this
political amalgam, including the legal arrangements applicable to the Arctic set forth in global
treaties such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Bio-
logical Diversity, and in regional arrangements emanating from the Long Range Treaty on Atmos-
pheric Pollution. Such legal arrangements represent binding approaches, but for many issues within
the Arctic, such as mining extraction, a non-binding approach applies, unlike in Antarctica. This
“soft law” approach began with the Declaration on Protection and the Arctic Environmental Protec-
tion Strategy (AEPS), a voluntary mechanism adopted in 1991 by the “eight Arctic countries”.
When the Arctic Council was created in 1996, it took over the responsibility for policies and pro-
grams developed under the AEPS. The Arctic Council has been viewed as continuing the tradition
of the soft law approach, and other non-binding instruments have followed.
The IUCN Environmental Law Centre and the International Council of Environmental Law
(ICEL) have initiated this work in order to explore whether the current approach can sufficiently
address the threats to the Arctic. It is especially important to learn from the experience gained from
the Antarctic Treaty regime. While, as Ms. Nowlan points out, these regions are in many ways
“polar opposites”, she quite rightly also notes that they have many similarities. Therefore, this
review of these legal and policy contrasts can help us consider future directions for the Arctic legal
regime.
With the help of a generous grant from the Elizabeth Haub Foundation (Canada), IUCN and
ICEL are pleased to be able to add this important paper to the current discussion.
Charles Di Leva
Director, Environmental Law Programme
Wolfgang E. Burhenne
Executive Governor, International Council of Environmental Law
vii
Aknowledgments
This report was initiated by Charles Di Leva, Director of the Environmental Law Centre of IUCN -
The World Conservation Union, (IUCN-ELC), and Wolfgang Burhenne, Executive Governor of the
International Council for Environmental Law (ICEL).
The author and West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation would like to thank the
following people who made generous contributions of their time and knowledge to assist with the
preparation of this report: Philippe Cousineau and Suzanne Steensen of the Canadian Department
of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Peter Ewins of WWF Canada, Terry Fenge of the Inuit
Circumpolar Conference, Dr. Grete K. Hovelsrud-Broda of the North Atlantic Marine Mammal
Commission, Charles Di Leva, Lee Kimball, Sune Sohlberg of the Department of Environment,
Sweden, and Chair of the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group of the Arctic
Council, the United Nations Environment Programme’s Division of Environmental Policy Devel-
opment and Law, and Professor David VanderZwaag of Dalhousie University Law School.
Thanks also to Christopher Heald, Ceciline Goh and Alexandra Melnyk for proofreading and
general administrative assistance. Thanks to Carole Therrien for the cover photograph of Canadian
Arctic scenery.
Special thanks to Professor Jutta Brunnée of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law for her
detailed and thought provoking review, to Sasha Nowicki for valuable research assistance, and to
LEAD International for the opportunity for the author to visit the Northwest Territories in Canada
in August 2000.
The author, along with the ICEL and the IUCN Environmental Law Centre would like to thank
the Elizabeth Haub Foundation (Canada) for making this report possible through its grant support.
The views expressed are those of the author and the West Coast Environmental Law Research
Foundation. Any errors and omissions are, of course, solely the responsibility of the author.
viii
Executive Summary
This report describes the current Arctic environmental legal regime. The report also discusses the
possibility of negotiating a sustainability treaty for the Arctic, with similar high standards of envi-
ronmental protection as those in the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic
Treaty. The Arctic treaty could encompass the sustainable development focus of the Arctic Coun-
cil, and enshrine innovative legal approaches already in use, such as the unique role of indigenous
peoples.
Current Legal Regime
The Arctic legal regime consists of a series of “soft law” agreements, which started with the 1991
Declaration on Protection of the Arctic Environment and the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy
(AEPS). The AEPS was absorbed into the work of the Arctic Council, created in 1996. The AEPS
was never legally binding, unlike comparable agreements in the Antarctic. The Arctic Council is a
high level intergovernmental forum. It conducts work through five Working Groups. The major
activities of the Working Groups are briefly summarized in the report.
All land areas fall under the uncontested sovereignty of one of the eight Arctic states (Canada,
Denmark/Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Russia and the United States) and so na-
tional domestic laws contain the primary legal controls on the environment. However, international
environmental laws and principles play an increasing role in this legal regime.
The report provides an overview of the global treaties and agreements that apply to the Arctic
region. Global agreements and treaties affect protection of the Arctic environment, and some were
designed to address environmental problems that surface most acutely in the Arctic. Many of the
most urgent Arctic environmental issues, such as climate change and persistent organic pollutants
can only be solved through global, multilateral approaches as the roots of these problems lie out-
side the Arctic.
The Arctic and Antarctic Legal Regimes
Comparisons with the well-developed Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), consisting of three treaties
and one comprehensive Protocol on Environmental Protection, inevitably arise when considering
the relatively undeveloped Arctic legal regime. The report compares the environmental legal re-
gimes of the two polar regions.
The polar regions are polar opposites in many respects. In the Antarctic, land, rather than the
ocean is the focus of the legal regime. The absence of an indigenous population and traditional way
of life also distinguishes the South from the North Pole. Industrial and resource development, start-
ing in 19th century with whaling and sealing, continuing with mining, hydrocarbon and other indus-
trial development, is more extensive in the Arctic than the Antarctic and has resulted in more sub-
stantial environmental impacts. Another distinguishing factor is that Antarctica is non-militarized
while the Arctic is highly strategic, militarized territory. The Arctic has a population of about 3.8
million, while the Antarctic has no permanent resident population, and is visited by only about
15,000 tourists a year.
Conversely, similarities between the two regions abound. Both regions have fragile environ-
ments susceptible to damage from outside sources. The poles are empty, inaccessible, and harsh.
ix
Extreme climactic conditions prevail. Unique flora and fauna set these regions apart from more
temperate zones.
Antarctica, as a single continent, with no indigenous or permanent human inhabitants, and no
commercial or industrial activities, is more easily governed by a single comprehensive environ-
mental treaty regime. Resolution of sovereignty over the Antarctic land mass and its offshore areas
has dominated legal discussions in that region, issues suited to be resolved by a treaty system. The
Arctic, on the other hand, is a region dominated by the existing national legal systems of the eight
Arctic states, which cover not only their land areas but their marine territories, to the limit of the
200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. The inhabitants of this region require a legal regime
that permits them to thrive, while at the same time protecting the fragile environment.
Adequacy of Current Arctic Environmental Legal Regime
A key question is whether the environmental protection provisions implemented on the national
territory of the Arctic states and the coordinated activities of the Arctic Council and its’ Working
Groups are sufficient to protect the Arctic.
There are numerous holes in the Arctic environmental legal regime when compared to the
comprehensive regime in place in the Antarctic. Despite the differences that a large resident popu-
lation and industrial development make, both polar regions are barometers of the global environ-
mental protection system. PCB laden whale tissue, melting ice from greenhouse gases produced
thousands of miles away, and declining populations of some charismatic polar species show that
the Arctic environment is not yet adequately protected.
In general, pollution is more adequately addressed by binding legal agreements than biodiversity
protection, both by the global agreements in place, and by the Arctic Council. The legal regime is
weaker when considering protection of species and spaces and the rich biodiversity of the still
relatively untouched Arctic.
Need for a New Arctic Environmental Agreement
Opinion is split on the need for a region wide treaty, though many conservation organizations,
scientists, government representatives and academic experts favour a new Agreement.
The main advantage of a treaty is the potential for increasing states’ obligations to protect the
environment through the elaboration of enforceable targets, timetables, and scheduled dues. A
binding legal agreement could attract more serious attention from states.
Much of the substance of a framework agreement is already in place. It may be relatively
easily to formalize an Arctic Council agreement, enshrine the mandates of the five Working Groups
of the Council, and add innovative features designed to address the particular needs of the Arctic.
The change from a strategy coordinated by Arctic states, the AEPS, to an organization that includes
the Strategy and other work elements, the Arctic Council, happened in a relatively short time frame.
As the pace of change accelerates in the Arctic, converting the Arctic Council agreement into a
more comprehensive treaty may be warranted. The precautionary principle may be incorporated
into a new treaty to ensure that one of the last of earth’s great wilderness areas remains intact.
Unlike the Antarctic, whose legal regime developed to stall territorial claims, halt militarization
and preserve a pristine environment for scientific research, the Arctic’s nascent structure includes
the development needs of people. There is no Northern movement to replicate the “nature reserve”
at the South Pole. The Arctic Council is one of the first regional governance bodies devoted to
environmental protection. With the addition of the Working Group on Sustainable Development,
x
the Council’s focus has shifted to encompass sustainable development. A new Agreement could
reflect this sustainability focus.
The main argument against a new treaty is that the current soft law arrangement is relatively
new and it is too early to evaluate whether it needs to be supplemented by an enforceable treaty.
Arctic states may be unlikely to want to invest time and energy into a treaty at this stage.
The Arctic has become a hotbed of innovative approaches to governance. A new agreement or
treaty could incorporate the innovations that have been adopted to date; and could seek to use new
innovate approaches.
For example, a regional agreement could build on the special role afforded to indigenous groups
as Permanent Participants in Arctic Council.
Although devolution of regulatory powers through a co-management regime will remain a
subject for domestic law, a regional agreement could encourage more widespread use of this legal
tool.
An expanded role for traditional ecological knowledge is also a possible topic for inclusion in
a regional environmental agreement.
The use of impact and benefit agreements is another innovative feature in some Arctic states.
Standardization of this requirement could go a long way to achieving sustainable development in
the Arctic region. Allowing some resource development to proceed in less ecologically sensitive
areas, with the full involvement of affected residents of the region and complete legally enforceable
agreements for mitigating harmful impacts and sharing benefits would be a step beyond traditional
environmental impact assessment towards a sustainable future.
xi
I. The Arctic Legal Regime – Moving from
Environmental Protection to Sustainability?
The fragile Arctic is under growing environmental stress. Accelerated resource extraction,
industrial expansion and distant polluting activities threaten the ecological integrity of one of the
world’s last great wilderness areas. To better protect the environment, the Arctic soft law regime
could be expanded and strengthened. Whether a revitalized Arctic environmental regime should
be modeled on the Antarctic treaty regime and subject to a legally binding treaty is the subject of
ongoing debate.1
This report discusses the current Arctic regional environmental legal regime; assesses the
applicability of global treaties and soft law agreements to the Arctic; compares the regimes of the
two polar regions and discusses the need for a new legally binding agreement. Potential advantages
of a treaty – more financial stability, increased public profile for and state commitment to Arctic
environmental protection, strengthened and harmonized environmental standards for the region –
may outweigh the chief disadvantage of diverting resources away from continuing development
of the relatively young soft law regime.
Calls for an Arctic treaty are not new. Many look to the Antarctic treaty regime as a model
to follow in the Arctic. The southern polar region, with a similar environment and environmental
stressors, is governed by a comprehensive and far reaching environmental protection treaty system.
Yet the key differences between the two poles in terms of population, industrial activity, and
national jurisdiction, make adoption of an Antarctic style treaty unlikely for the Arctic.
1. Unlike Antarctica, the Arctic is not a Nature Reserve

Antarctica has become a model in international law for a purely environmentally focused
management regime. Development of its’ legal system was made possible by the absence of an
indigenous human population and land-based industrial and resource uses. Consequently, there
was no need to balance conservation and economic development. In contrast, the Arctic’s
permanent population requires economic activity for survival. The wealth accruing from resource
extraction in the Arctic has historically not benefited local populations, and serious social problems
of poverty, unemployment, drug and alcohol abuse continue to plague local and indigenous
communities. Environmental degradation has also resulted from industrial use.
Rather than replicating the Antarctic treaty regime, which preserves the continent as a “natural
reserve, devoted to peace and science,” a new Arctic regional agreement could reconcile
indigenous rights, societal needs, and economic activity while ensuring above all that ecological
integrity is maintained. Indigenous rights and Arctic economic development are sensitive political
and legal issues. The Arctic has the potential to become a different type of model regime, the testing
ground for a new exemplar of regional environmental agreement that recognizes and accounts for
human society and economic activity. Both polar regions have unique features to offer for the
development of international environmental law.
1
Young, Oran R. The Structure of Arctic Cooperation: Solving Problems/Seizing Opportuni-
ties, in a paper prepared at the request of Finland in preparation for the fourth conference of
Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, Rovaniemi, 27-29 August 2000, online at http://
www.grida.no/parl/, identifies resolution of the need for a legally binding treaty as a key
question for the Arctic Parliamentarians to answer.
1
Arctic Legal Regime for Environmental Protection
2. Adequacy of Current Environmental Legal Regime

This report will highlight the adequacy of the current Arctic environmental legal regime, and
contrast it with the Antarctic regime. The Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS), now
encompassed by the Arctic Council, was never legally binding, unlike comparable agreements in
the Antarctic. The report will consider the possibility of negotiating a sustainability treaty for the
Arctic, with similar high standards of environmental protection as those in the 1991 Protocol on
Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. An Arctic treaty could also encompass the
sustainable development focus of the Arctic Council, and enshrine innovative legal approaches
already in use, such as the unique role of indigenous peoples.
All land areas fall under the uncontested sovereignty of one of the eight Arctic states (Canada,
Denmark/Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Russia and the United States), national
domestic laws contain the primary legal controls on the environment. Regional laws also regulate
the Arctic environment. Denmark, Finland and Sweden are subject to European Union (EU) laws.
Canada and the US are parties to the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.
However, international environmental laws and principles play an increasing role in this legal
regime. Many global treaties affect protection of the Arctic environment, most prominently the
Climate Change, Biodiversity and the recently concluded – Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS)
Conventions. Regional arrangements such as the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum
formed in 1996 to address common Arctic concerns, and its predecessor, the AEPS, a “soft law”
framework for environmental cooperation, are also part of the legal framework, though arguably
less important than binding law.
While social equity and economic stability are essential elements of sustainability, this report
will concentrate on the adequacy of the Arctic environmental legal regime. Environmental
protection has not been a primary focus of the domestic legal regimes of the Arctic states, though
the regional regime emerged from environmental concerns, prompted by catastrophes such as the
Exxon Valdez oil spill and the Chernobyl nuclear accident, and by mounting scientific evidence
that distant industrial practices were harming Arctic peoples and ecosystems.
This report discusses whether the combined effect of global agreements and domestic
environmental laws is sufficient to protect one of the world’s last great wilderness areas. The Arctic
states, bound together by their common borders on the world’s most northern ocean, share common
topography, resources, environment, peoples and concerns. Though there are increasingly close
linkages between international/regional and domestic environmental legal regimes in the Arctic,
a comprehensive legally binding legal structure is missing. A regional Arctic Environmental
Protection or Sustainability Agreement could be a vehicle to fill gaps in the still incomplete Arctic
legal regime, and may better serve to protect the region’s unique characteristics. The design of a
strengthened legal regime should be guided by the overlapping ecological and cultural values of
residents of the Arctic. The increasing decision-making role of indigenous Arctic peoples should
also be reflected in a revitalized regime.
II. The Current Arctic Environmental Legal Regime

1. The Arctic Region
The Arctic is a vast, under-populated region, home to approximately three and a half million people,
of which about one-fifth are native indigenous peoples.2 The Arctic is the largest remaining
wilderness area in the northern hemisphere.
2
The definition of the Arctic area used in this report is the same as that used by one of the
Working Groups of the Arctic Council: the boundary lies between 60°N and the Arctic Circle,
2
With a land mass exceeding 25 million square kilometres, the Arctic is one of the world’s
largest geographical regions.3 Russia has most of the Arctic’s land mass, and Canada is the second
largest Arctic state. All of Greenland and Iceland’s land mass is above the 60th parallel. The ice-
covered Arctic Ocean is almost completely enclosed, with only four openings. Only about 10%
of the Arctic Ocean is free of ice, even in summer.4 Like Antarctica, the Arctic is dominated by
extreme climatic conditions, and plays a key role in regulating global climate and the oceans.
The Arctic supports many unique marine and terrestrial species, such as narwhals, polar bears,
and reindeer, and is a major nursery and breeding ground for migratory birds and marine mammals.
Arctic species congregate in huge numbers. The largest puffin colony in the world has more than
one million nests on Talan Island in the Okhotsk Sea.5 Three of the world’s largest caribou herds
have 500,000 animals or more: the Western Arctic herd in northwest Alaska, the George River herd
in northern Quebec and the Taimyr Peninsula herd in Siberia.6
Like Antarctica, the Arctic is an important area for scientific and environmental research, as
it is still relatively pristine. However, the seeming purity of the environment can be deceiving.
Pollution from local and distant source affects the region, catalogued in a comprehensive State of
the Arctic Environment Report (SOAER) in 1997.7 For example, health risks from the consump-
tion of predatory marine and terrestrial mammals with high degrees of contaminants are signifi-
cantly higher in Arctic than non-Arctic states.8
1.1 Environmental Issues in the Arctic

The most serious global environmental issue in the Arctic is the deposition of contaminants to the
Arctic ecozones through long-range transport in the atmosphere, while the most important regional
issues are mining, tourism, and military activities.9
with some modifications. In the North Atlantic, the southern boundary follows 62°N, and
includes the Faroe Islands. To the west, the Labrador and Greenland Seas are included. In the
Bering Sea area, the southern boundary is the Aleutian chain. Hudson Bay and the White Sea
are considered part of the Arctic for the purposes of the assessment. In the terrestrial
environment, the southern boundary in each country is determined by that country, but lies
between the Arctic Circle and 60°N. AMAP, Arctic Pollution Issues: A State of the Arctic
Environment Report (AMAP: Norway), 1997, (“SOAER”).
3
IUCN Draft Framework Strategy and Action Plan for IUCN Work in the Circumpolar Arctic,
Sept. 2000.
4
“Arctic Ecozones” in The State of Canada’s Environment, (Environment Canada: Ottawa),
1996.
5
Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Arctic Profiles, “Species,” at http://collections.ic.gc.ca/
arctic/english.htm.
6
Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, “Frequently Asked Questions about
Caribou,” at http://www.arctic-caribou.com/.
7
The SOAER will be updated in 2002. The summary report and the scientific studies companion
volume can be found at http://www.amap.no.
8
SOAER, AMAP Report on Issues of Concern: Updated Information on Human Health,
Persistent Organic Pollutants, Radioactivity, and Mercury in the Arctic, September 2000, both
online at http://www.amap.no.
9
“Challenges for Sustainable Development” in The State of Canada’s Environment, (Environ-
ment Canada: Ottawa), 1996.
3
A key environmental problem is warming ocean temperatures, evidence of climate change

dramatically impacting wildlife and Arctic peoples. Radioactivity, persistent organic pollutants,
acidification, oil pollution and heavy metals are of concern. Over-harvesting of natural resources
such as fish and marine mammals, and overgrazing by reindeer are resource management
challenges. Mines, nuclear plants and hazardous waste disposal are other prominent environmental
problems.
Recent concern about the Arctic environment comes in part from increased rates of resource
extraction in the region. Examples include:
• a record number of new mines such as diamond mines in Canada’s Northwest Territories,
expanded mines, and extension of mines slated for closing, such as the Lake Myvatn
diatomite mine in Iceland,10
• construction of infrastructure such as new roads for mines, tourist sites, and industrial
developments, with consequent negative impacts on wildlife,11
• pressure to increase timber harvests from boreal forests in the far North, fragmenting
habitat,12
• overfishing in the North Pacific, North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans,
• new offshore oil and gas drilling and pipeline proposals, and
• expansion of the nuclear industry in the Arctic, demonstrated by proposals to construct

several floating nuclear power plants in eastern Siberia13 and Russia’s new law allowing
the import of spent nuclear waste for storage and disposal, expected to generate $30 billion
in revenue.14
2. The Regional Legal Regime

Unlike the Antarctic, which has a comprehensive treaty regime developed over a number of
decades, beginning in the late 1950s, the Arctic has no binding legal regime. The region has no
history of multilateral cooperation and throughout the Cold War period, had a strategic and
antagonistic, rather than cooperative, focus.
Domestic laws of the Arctic states provide the framework for environmental protection. Yet
global treaties and norms increasingly influence the content of domestic laws, and so provide the
10
Arni Finnson, “Controversial Decision on Mining Lake Myvatn,” WWF Arctic Bulletin 4.00,
2000.
11
Ayesha Ercelawn, End of the Road – The Adverse Ecological Impacts of Roads and Logging:
A Compilation of Independently Reviewed Research (NRDC: New York) 1999. Some of the
studies collected in this report document wolves avoiding roads open to regular public use, and
collision with a vehicle as the highest cause of death for female moose, both in Alaska.
12
UNEP, GEO-2000, Global Environment Outlook, chapter 2, The Polar Regions, (UNEP:
Nairobi), 2000.
13
Thomas Nilsen, “Floating Nuclear Plants in the Siberian Arctic?” WWF Arctic Bulletin 4.00,
2000.
14
Giles Whittell, “Russia to accept nuclear waste – for $30 billion,” Vancouver Sun, Dec. 22,
2000, A9c.
4
backdrop for domestic legal developments. Marine treaties in particular have influenced the
content of Arctic states’ domestic environmental laws, and to date, the focus of the Arctic
environmental legal regime has been on marine conservation. Bilateral agreements between
individual Arctic states on issues such as fisheries, wildlife and protection from pollution are
numerous.15
This chapter describes the growth in Arctic cooperation initiatives, and the elements of the
current “soft-law” Arctic environmental legal regime. The next chapter discusses the other key part
of the regional regime: the global and regional treaties and agreements that apply to the Arctic.16
2.1 Overview of Regime

The Arctic legal regime consists of a series of “soft law” agreements, which started with the 1991
Declaration on Protection of the Arctic Environment and the Arctic Environmental Protection
Strategy (AEPS).17 The AEPS was absorbed into the work of the Arctic Council, created in 1996.
It remains a valid Strategy for Working Groups of the Arctic Council. The 1998 Regional
Programme of Action for the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment from Land-Based
Activities and the 2000 Arctic Council Action Plan to Eliminate Pollution of the Arctic are the most
recent examples of soft law environmental agreements in the region.
The regime’s guiding body, the Arctic Council, is not an international organization with legal
personality, but instead a “high-level forum intended to provide a means for promoting cooperation
among Arctic states . . . on common Arctic issues, in particular issues of sustainable development
and environmental protection in the Arctic.”18
Gaps in the Arctic environmental legal regime relate to specific environmental issues, such as
inadequate control of environmental impacts of mining and incomplete biodiversity protection.
Other Arctic gaps include the full integration of indigenous peoples into the legal regime of most
Arctic states, (despite indigenous rights and land claims), and the sharing of benefits from resource
activities with indigenous as well as local communities. The regional regime also suffers from
being unenforceable, lacking specific commitments, targets and timetables for action, and chronic
under-funding. Though many global and regional agreements apply to the Arctic, and even have
special provisions related to the Arctic, such as the Protocols to the Convention on Long Range
Trans-boundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(LOSC), when compared with the comprehensive and far reaching regime in place in the Antarctic,
the Arctic’s regime appears incomplete.
2.2 Growth in Arctic Cooperation Initiatives

In the past decade numerous new Arctic governance initiatives have flourished. The Arctic Council
is the flagship of these new initiatives. Created by the Ottawa Declaration in 1996, the Arctic
Council has eight members: Canada, Russia, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark/
Greenland and the United States. Each member state is represented by Senior Arctic Officials
15
Donald Rothwell, The Polar Regions and the Development of International Law, (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press), 1996, 157.
16
A discussion of the domestic environmental laws of the Arctic states is outside the scope of this
report.
17
30 ILM 624 (1991).
18
Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council, Ottawa, 1996, at http://www.arctic-
council.org/establ.asp.
5
(SAO) on the Council. While the Declaration does not state who should represent the states at the
biennial council meetings, Foreign Ministers or another designated Minister or senior official
usually lead state delegations.
A host of other organizations also exist to serve the region, and have proliferated since the late
1980s. Initiatives may be region-wide inter-governmental regimes such as the Arctic Council and
AEPS; sub-national region-wide regimes such as the Northern Forum and Standing Committee of
Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region; sub-regional inter-governmental regimes such as the Nordic
Council and Barents Euro-Arctic Region; indigenous organizations such as the Saami Council and
Inuit Circumpolar Conference; or non-governmental organizations such as the International Arctic
Science Committee.19 A brief description of the major initiatives follows.20
The Nordic Council – Established in 1952 to promote dialogue and joint action on regional
issues, the Council brings together representatives from the parliaments and governments of the
five Nordic states – Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Finland – and the three associated “home-
rule” territories of Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Aaland Islands.
The Saami Council – This Council is the first trans-boundary organization of Arctic native
peoples. Saami minorities in the three Scandinavian countries were the original members. Russian
Saami are now included. Except for the Russian representatives, Saami Council members are
elected.
The Inuit Circumpolar Conference – This organization exists to unite Inuit peoples from
Alaska, Canada, Greenland and Russia, particularly around resource development and self-
determination issues. The ICC and the Saami Council are two of the founding “Permanent
Participants” in the Arctic Council, a special category reserved for indigenous groups.
The International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) – This Committee is a non-govern-

mental organization made up of the representatives from national science organizations in the eight
Arctic states and eight other countries with longstanding interests in Arctic research. IASC
members do not act on behalf of governments. The Committee emphasizes scientific cooperation
between Arctic scientists. It is similar to SCAR, the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research.
The Northern Forum – The Forum promotes exchanges among sub-national governments
in the Northern regions on issues such as northern technologies and socio-economic development.
It includes twenty-four sub-national or regional governments from ten countries. It does not span
the circumpolar north: Nunavut, northern Quebec, Labrador, and Greenland are not members;
whereas there are members from China, Mongolia, Japan, and Korea is also a national observer.
The North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) – The governments of

Norway, Iceland, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands, with Canada, Russia, and Japan as observers,
formed this organization to promote the sustainable utilization of living marine resources, in
particular all cetaceans and pinnipeds.
The Council of the Barents Euro-Arctic Region (BEAR) – Created in January 1993, the
Council brings together the five Nordic countries, the European Union and Russia with the
overarching aim of helping to reintegrate Russia within Europe, and specifically to work on
19
Oran Young “The Structure of Arctic Cooperation: Solving Problems/Seizing opportunities,”
2000, prepared for the Fourth Council of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region.”
20
For more information on these organizations, consult their respective websites. This summary
description is adapted from a report by the Canadian Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs, Canada and the Circumpolar World: Meeting the Challenges of Cooperation
in to the Twenty-First Century, 1997 (“SCFAIT report’).
6
common environmental and sustainable development challenges in the Barents Sea area. Canada
and the U.S. are among several observer countries to this process.
The Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region (SCPAR) – This

Committee includes representatives from the Nordic region, the other Arctic countries, the
European Parliament, and from the ICC and Saami parliaments.
The growth of Arctic governance and cooperation initiatives coincides with the development
of Arctic specific provisions in global governance agreements and regimes. Examples range from
the development of a Polar Navigation Code by the International Maritime Organization, to
statements from an Arctic Council representative to the meeting which produced the POPs treaty,
to funding of biodiversity-related projects in Russia by the Global Environment Facility.
3. Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS)21

Arctic environmental cooperation was first proposed forty years ago, at the same time as the start
of the Antarctic treaty regime. Proposals were short-lived at that time due to the Cold War.
The eight Arctic countries started serious discussions about a coordinated approach to Arctic
environmental protection in 1989. Impetus for the initial meeting came from several events. The
first of these events was the beginning of “glasnost” in the Soviet Union in 1987, leading eventually
to the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. A famous speech by then Soviet Union Secretary-General
Mikhail Gorbachev in Murmansk in 1987 calling for greater Arctic cooperation and an Arctic “zone
of peace” was both a death knell for the Cold War, and a signal for the birth of a new era in
cooperation.22 Ironically, though the dissolution of the Soviet Union was one factor prompting
formation of the AEPS, the economic changes since dissolution have meant that Russia has been
unable to implement many of its commitments under the Strategy.
Prominent environmental disasters in the region also pointed out the need for a new regime.
The catastrophic nuclear accident in Chernobyl in 1986, the true consequences of which were only
revealed in 1989; and the massive Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska in 1989 galvanized public
resolve to clean up the Arctic. Evidence of environmental damage caused by activities in other parts
of the Arctic was also accumulating. Smelter emissions on the Kola Peninsula were harming
Finland’s northern forests,23 and increasingly high levels of contaminants were detected in the
traditional foods of indigenous peoples in the North, much higher than would be expected in a non-
industrial region.24 By 1989, Arctic state representatives were ready to tackle common environ-
mental problems. The Finnish government was responsible for convening the first meeting, which
became known as the “Rovaniemi” process, named after the city in Finland where the meeting was
held.25 In 1991, after two years of negotiation, the parties signed a Declaration on Protection of
the Arctic Environment, and adopted the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS).
21
(1991) 30 ILM 1, 624.
22
23
Young, Oran R. Creating Regimes: Arctic Accords and International Governance, (Ithaca,
NY, USA: Cornell University Press), 1998, 54.
24
Government of Canada, Commissioner for Environment and Sustainable Development,
“Making International Environmental Agreements Work: The Canadian Arctic Experience,”
Ottawa, 1999.
25
For a complete description of the creation of the AEPS, see Oran Young, Creating Regimes
– Arctic Accords and International Governance, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press), 1998.
7
The AEPS does not define the Arctic area, though this lack of definition does not appear to have
caused any problems. While formally agreed to between states in written form, it is not legally a
treaty.26 The Parties did not believe that the AEPS imposed binding legal obligations upon them.27
The objectives of the AEPS were:
i. to protect the Arctic ecosystems, including humans,
ii. to provide for the protection, enhancement and restoration of environmental quality and
the sustainable utilization of natural resources including their use by local populations and
indigenous peoples in the Arctic,
iii. to recognize and to the extent possible, seek to accommodate the traditional and cultural
needs, values and practices of the indigenous peoples, as determined by themselves,
related to the protection of the Arctic environment,
iv. to review regularly the state of the Arctic environment, and
v. to identify, reduce, and as a final goal, eliminate pollution.
The AEPS did not address some of the major causes of Arctic environmental problems, such
as climate change and ozone depletion, because they were already being addressed in other fora.
The AEPS described environmental issues, canvassed the existing legal regime and proposed six
priorities for action: persistent organic contaminants, oil pollution, heavy metals, noise, radioac-
tivity, and acidification.
Of the six environmental pollutants identified as being Arctic-wide, all but one, noise, was
trans-boundary.28 To assess the environmental impact of these six pollutants, the Arctic states
established an Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, and three other working group
programs; Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF); Protection of the Arctic Marine
Environment (PAME); and Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPPR) Program. These
working groups of the programs are now working groups of the Arctic Council, and their major
accomplishments are summarized in the next section of this report.
The AEPS marked the beginning of the formation of a new regime, which continues to evolve.
The Ministers met at four Ministerial Conferences before the programmes of the AEPS were
integrated into Arctic Council Working Groups in 1997.
3.1 Evaluation of Effectiveness of AEPS

The AEPS has had mixed reviews. It focused attention on the region, and increased state
commitment to take action to protect the Arctic environment. However, it has been called an
“unambitious regime,” that adds little to the existing environmental monitoring programmes of the
26
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Art. 2 (1) (a) defines a treaty as: an
international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by interna-
tional law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and
whatever its particular designation.
27
Cambridge University Press), 1996, 239 – 241.
28
AEPS, paras. 3.1-3.6 at 1, 635-43.
8
Arctic states.29 The AEPS action plan on priority environmental issues established no concrete
targets, few timetables, and only general national commitments, such as to implement the best
available technology to control releases of heavy metals. NGO criticisms focussed on the
piecemeal nature of its efforts, and failure to link to global issues. Commentators generally agree
that the greatest strength of the AEPS was to provide a foundation for future work.30
4. Arctic Council
The Arctic Council was a natural outgrowth of the AEPS. States saw the need to expand the
Strategy beyond purely environmental issues. An independent Arctic Council Panel was formed
in Canada. Its 1991 report called for a council which would make the circumpolar region “a domain
of enhanced civility – an area in which aboriginal peoples enjoy their full rights, and where the
governments that speak for southern majorities accord progressively greater respect to the natural
environment, to one another, and in particular, to aboriginal people.”31 The initial proposal in 1991
envisioned a treaty to create the Council. A draft for a framework treaty was published in 1991.32
Leadership in creating the Council came from Canada, which hosted Senior Arctic Officials
(SAO) meetings in the North in the early 1990s. In 1996, the Ottawa Declaration was signed.
Contentious issues in the negotiations leading up to the Declaration centered on the role for
indigenous organizations, and the inclusion of sustainable development goals.
The Declaration creating the Council states that the Council will look in particular at issues
of sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic. The Declaration is a
skeletal outline.
The Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council states that the Council is
established as a high level forum to:
a) provide a means for promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic
States, with the involvement of the Arctic indigenous communities and other Arctic
inhabitants on common arctic issues, but should not deal with matters related to military
security);
b) oversee and coordinate the programs established under the AEPS on the Arctic Monitoring
and Assessment Program (AMAP), Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF),
Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME), and Emergency Preparedness and
Response (EPPR);
c) adopt terms of reference for and oversee and coordinate a sustainable development
program; and
29
30
David VanderZwaag, “International Law and Arctic Marine Conservation – A Slushy, Shifting
Seascape” (1997), Vol. 9, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review; Rothwell,
ibid. 329.
31
Arctic Council Panel, To Establish an International Arctic Council: A Framework Report,
1991, Northern Perspectives.
32
Donat Pharand, Proposal for an Arctic Council Treaty, Northern Perspectives, 1991.
9
d) disseminate information, encourage education and promote interest in Arctic-related

issues.33
Observers urged the Arctic Council to reject the “talk shop” image of many international
organizations, and focus on improving the livelihood and well-being of Arctic residents. Priority
areas for action identified by indigenous and other Arctic residents were revitalization of the sealing
industry, and removal of trade barriers for marine mammal products in Europe and the United
States.34
4.1 Role of Indigenous People

The special role for indigenous peoples as Permanent Participants is a unique feature of the Arctic
Council. Indigenous groups were involved in the working groups of the AEPS, and an Arctic
indigenous people’s secretariat, hosted by Denmark, was set up in 1993.35
The original proposal for the Arctic Council envisaged equal status for the Arctic government
representatives and indigenous group representatives. The Arctic Council created a category of
Permanent Participant to recognize the unique status of indigenous peoples in the Arctic. The
Declaration carefully notes that “the use of the term “peoples” in this Declaration shall not be
construed as having any implications as regards the rights which may attach to the term under
international law.”
Three indigenous umbrella organizations were listed as Permanent Participants in the Council,
with provision for additional “other Arctic organizations of indigenous peoples with majority
constituency, representing (a) a single people resident in more than one Arctic state; or (b) more
than one Arctic indigenous people resident in a single Arctic state.” Using this criteria, three
additional groups have since been confirmed. Permanent Participants on the Council are now:
• the Association of Indigenous Minorities of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the
Russian Federation,
• the Inuit Circumpolar Conference,
• the Saami Council,
• the Aleutian International Association,
• the Gwich’in Council International and
• the Arctic Athabaskan Council.
Though these Participants are not formal members of the Council and do not vote, they are
virtually equivalent to the state members. They have the right to participate in all meetings (except
those declared in camera by the state representatives) and activities of the Council, and to present
proposals for cooperative activities.
33
Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council (1996), available on the Arctic Council
website at: http://www.arctic-council.org/.
34
SCFAIT Report, Chapter 3, 24.
35
The Indigenous Peoples’ Secretariat was established to facilitate the involvement of indigenous
peoples in the work of the Arctic Council. Its website is at http://www.arcticpeoples.org.
10
The Arctic Council’s effectiveness is significantly enhanced by this innovative approach to
indigenous peoples.36 There is a general consensus among the participants that indigenous
involvement in the AEPS has made the process a different and more successful product. Their
participation gives “real life examples” of the impacts of policies and developments.
Use of Indigenous Knowledge – The use of indigenous knowledge or traditional ecological

knowledge (TEK) started with the AEPS. According to the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, which
prepared a report on this topic for the 1993 ministerial meeting in Nuuk, indigenous knowledge is
understood to be comprised of “information and concepts about the environment and ecology that
are known but usually not formally recorded by individuals who belong to a particular cultural
group that has occupied an identifiable territory over a long period of time” and includes “facts,
concepts and theories about the characteristics which describe the objects, events, behaviours and
interconnections that comprise both the animate and inanimate environments of indigenous
peoples.” From the indigenous point of view, “indigenous knowledge is a body of knowledge in
its own right and a means of communication and decision-making that reflects who indigenous
peoples are and the world view that they hold.”37
Indigenous knowledge was incorporated in the SOAER in a chapter on indigenous ways of

living and traditional diet.
One of the Arctic Council’s Working Groups has also sponsored TEK studies and projects
such as collecting indigenous knowledge on beluga whales in Alaska, creating an Indigenous
Peoples’ Knowledge database, a study on ice edge ecosystem and indigenous knowledge, and
developing ethical principles for research.
A comprehensive report on the topic was recently prepared for the Arctic Council Indigenous
Peoples’ Secretariat.38
4.2 Procedure of Council

Ministerial meetings are held every two years. Decisions are made by consensus. The work of the
Council and its Working Groups is supervised by Senior Arctic Officials (SAOs) in consultation
with representatives of the Permanent Participants. The Council has developed Rules of Procedure,
which apply to all subsidiary bodies of the Council as well as to the Council itself.39 All cooperative
activities of the Council must be endorsed by Ministerial mandate. States are free to take action,
singly or collectively, independently of the Council. Each program of the Council is voluntarily
funded by one of the States.
In addition to the Permanent Participants, participation in the Arctic Council is also open to
observers such as non-Arctic states, intergovernmental and inter-parliamentary organizations and
non-governmental organizations. A full list of observers is on the Arctic Council’s website.
36
Evan T. Bloom, Current Development: Establishment of the Arctic Council, 1999, 93 A.J.I.L.
712.
37
Monica Tennberg, INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ INVOLVEMENT IN THE ARCTIC COUN-
CIL, Northern Notes, IV: 21-32 (December 1996), online at http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/
ArcticCircle/NatResources/Policy/tennberg.html.
38
Philip Burgess, Traditional Knowledge, 1999, available online at http://www.arcticpeoples.org/
knowl.htm.
39
The Rules are on the Council’s website at Rules of Procedure [Revised 9-98] http://
www.arctic-council.org/.
11
4.3 Arctic Council Working Groups

The Arctic Council has five working groups. Each group’s mandate is relevant for environmental
protection. Each group has developed a program of work. The five working groups are:
• Sustainable Development Program (SDWG)
• Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP)
• Emergency, Prevention, Preparedness and Response Program (EPPRP)
• Protection of Arctic Marine Environment (PAME)
• Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF)
A description of the work of each group, and major accomplishments to-date, is set out below.
Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG) – Sustainable development was

prominent in the discussions creating the Arctic Council, and has been given shape in the latest
Working Group on Sustainable Development.
Established in 1998, the goal of the SDWG is to protect and enhance the economies, culture
and health of the inhabitants of the Arctic, in an environmentally sustainable manner. The Arctic
states could not agree on a comprehensive sustainable development program until the 2000 meeting
in Barrow, Alaska, due to uncertainty about the meaning of sustainable development. During the
formation of the Council, the relationship of sustainable development to environmental protection
was a frequent subject of debate, with some NGOs concerned that inclusion of the concept of SD
would lessen the emphasis on environmental protection. Others saw that SD was “both a good and
integrating concept of the Arctic Council, to incorporate not only environmental protection but also
the economic and social aspects of the Arctic agenda.”40
The overall goal of the program is to improve the environmental, economic, and social
conditions of Arctic communities. This Group to-date has carried out specific projects on disparate
topics such as Arctic children and youth, health, tele-medicine, resource management, technology
transfer to improve Arctic sanitation systems, national sustainable development strategies, living
conditions in the Arctic, and linking Arctic communities.
An issue that has plagued the Group since its inception is barriers to trade in marine mammal
products.41 Bans in the United States and Europe on the importation of skins and fur from seals
is a major issue in the North, one that a regional legal agreement could seek to resolve. The
predecessor to the SDWG, the Task Force on Sustainable Development and Utilization (TFSDU),
sponsored research on the retrospective seal market collapse study and a study on trade barriers.
Accomplishments:
• Framework Document (Chapeau) for the Sustainable Development Program.42 This two
page document lists six areas of special importance for the Program, including health,
40
Ambassador Mary Simon, Testimony to SCFAIT Report.
41
David VanderZwaag, “ International Commons – The Arctic” in The Year in Review, 1999,
10YbIEL 303-307.
42
The SDWG currently has no website of its own. The program for the group can be found at
http://www.arctic-council.org/barrow/chapeau.pdf.
12
sustainable economic activities, education, children and youth, management of natural,
including living resources, and infrastructure development. The document notes the
strong commitment of the Council to approve projects in these areas that will deliver
tangible benefits to residents of the Arctic.
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) – This was the first group to
become operational under the AEPS, and has a secretariat based in Norway. AMAP’s objective
is “providing reliable and sufficient information on the status of, and threats to, the Arctic
environment, and providing scientific advice on actions to be taken in order to support Arctic
governments in their efforts to take remedial and preventive actions relating to contaminants.”43
The scope of its monitoring program embraces sources of pollution, both within Arctic regions
and at lower latitudes, pathways of pollutant transfer to and within the Arctic, levels and trends, fate
of pollutants, and their effects on Arctic ecosystems and human populations.44
AMAP’s major accomplishments are:
• publication of two seminal reports: the 1997 Arctic Pollution Issues: A State of the Arctic
Environment Report (SOAER) and the 1998 AMAP Assessment Report: Arctic Pollution
Issues, containing the scientific studies and references for the plain language SOAER;
• an update of the SOAER: Updated Information on Human Health, Persistent Organic

Pollutants, Radioactivity and Mercury in the Arctic, 2000;
• research and monitoring that have played a significant role in developing the scientific
justification for international controls on contaminants, including binding protocols on
persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and heavy metals;
• research that supported the negotiations for a global agreement on POPs;
• coordination of the first phase of a ‘Multilateral Cooperative Project on Phase-out of

PCB Use, and Management of PCB-contaminated Wastes in the Russian Federation’; and
• together with IASC and CAFF, development of an Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
(ACIA), which is now a project of the Arctic Council as a whole.
AMAP has been characterized as the most visible element and having the most ambitious
programs of the Arctic Council.45
Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) – CAFF was established to address the
special needs of Arctic species and their habitats in the rapidly developing Arctic region.46 Its work
is guided by the Strategic Plan for the Conservation of Biological Diversity, published in 1998.
CAFF released an overview report on the status and trends in changes to Arctic ecosystems, habitats
and species, in June 2001. Recommendations related to the report will be prepared for the next
ministerial meeting of Senior Arctic Officials in 2002.
43
The website for this group is http://www.amap.no/.
44
Report of Senior Arctic Officials to Arctic Council Ministers, Barrow, Alaska, Oct. 2000, 11.
45
Oran Young, Creating Regimes: Arctic Accords and International Governance, (Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press), 1998, 39.
46
The website for this group is at http://www.grida.no/caff/.
13
Accomplishments:
• Development of the Circumpolar Protected Area Network (CPAN). This Group has
conducted several gap analyses on protected areas in the Arctic: the first report on the state
of protected areas in the circumpolar Arctic in 1994; a 1996 report on gaps in habitat
protection, and a detailed gap analysis of the Russian Arctic in 2000. The 1996 report
classified the entire Arctic region into seven vegetation zones and found that the least
amount of protection was found in the northern boreal zone (2.6%) and inshore waters
(2.1%). As the northern boreal zone comprises about 34% of the region, this zone was
identified as a high priority for further protection;47
• Preparation of the Strategic Plan for the Conservation of Arctic Biological Diversity.
Biological diversity is the umbrella for the work of CAFF; and the Cooperative Strategy
and Strategic Plan provide the basis for determining priority objectives and activities;
• Murre and Eider Duck Conservation Strategies;
• Atlas of Rare Endemic Vascular Plants of the Arctic;
• Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), with AMAP;
• Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Network;
• RAIPON/CAFF Sacred Sites Project;
• CAFF Flora Group;
• Circumpolar Vegetation Mapping Project (CAVM); and
• CAFF-GEF Project in Arctic Russia – Funding for some projects in Russia that conserve
biological diversity is provided by the Global Environment Facility, a joint UNEP/UNDP/
World Bank agency. This project also receives funding from Arctic states.
This Group has noted the need to address trans-boundary relationships of national protected
areas, and the need for more marine protected areas. Outside evaluations of CAFF have noted that
its work has led to little action to date; Arctic countries have not implemented the Group’s
recommendations; the Group lacks a clearly defined and ambitious program, and is nonbinding.48
Many of these criticisms apply to the AEPS and Arctic Council as a whole.
Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR) – EPPR was established to

provide a framework for co-operation in responding to the threat of environmental emergencies,
act as an experts forum to evaluate the adequacy of existing arrangements and to recommend a
system of cooperation. At the second Ministerial Conference in Nuuk, Greenland, the Ministers
underlined the necessity of a notification system and improved cooperation for mutual aid in case
of accidents in the Arctic area.49
47
CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No. 5 – Gaps in Habitat Protection in the Circumpolar
Arctic – A Preliminary Analysis. 1996.
48
WWF and UNEP, CAFF and Conservation in the Arctic, Summary of a Workshop on Arctic
Biological Diversity Conservation: Perspectives and Structures, 1997, available online at
<http://ngo.grida.no./wwfap/CAFFreport>.
49
The website for this group is at http://www.ims.uaf.edu:8000/EPPR/.
14
Accomplishments:
• completion of the Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters;
• development of Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines by the PAME working group in
consultation with the EPPR working group; and
• preparation of a Circumpolar Map of Resources at Risk from oil Spills in the Arctic.
Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) – PAME was established to address
policy and non-emergency response measures related to protection of the marine environment from
land and sea-based activities.
Accomplishments:
• information gathered on major sources of marine pollution from within the Arctic and from
outside the region, and on current and planned shipping activities and their effects on the
environment,
• completion of the Regional Plan of Action for the Protection of the Arctic Marine
Environment from Land-based Activities,
• Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines – There are limited global standards for both
onshore oil and gas development, developed by the World Bank, and by MARPOL, the
main treaty in this area, for offshore oil and gas exploration and development. PAME led
the Arctic states to develop new regional guidelines for offshore oil and gas development,
with AMAP and EPPR.
4.4 Evaluation of Effectiveness of Council

Though many observers believed the Council would strengthen the AEPS, it is too soon to judge
whether significant change has resulted from the elevation of the Strategy to a Council. Like the
AEPS, the Council has no enforcement authority, has been underfunded, and contains very few,
if any, substantive commitments on the part of the signatories to take concrete action. A review
of the Council in 1998 notes that the activities and reports of the various Working Groups were
“quite general,” “lack specificity,” and “largely descriptive.”50
The Arctic Council is not strictly an organization: it has no set offices or dedicated personnel.
The Declaration does not give the Council decision-making powers and states have not relin-
quished any decision-making powers to the Council. Indeed some say that the decision-making
ability of the Council has very purposely been limited, by the United States in particular.51 Because
it lacks a fixed budget, the Council’s ability to create new programs or carry out new activities is
limited.
The Council’s actions are also hard to isolate amid the numerous other structures that exist in
the North, some of which overlap with the Council, such as the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, and
others which involve some, but not all of the same actors, such as the Northern Forum. It may be
50
David VanderZwaag, “International Commons – The Arctic” in The Year in Review, 1998,
9YbIEL 266-273.
51
“For a variety of reasons, the US has worked to ensure that the Arctic Council has a limited
mandate, and thus has limited significance.” Samantha Smith, “Ministerial with Only Three
Ministers,” WWF Arctic Bulletin No. 4, Fall 2000, 4.
15
“more appropriate to treat the council as a forerunner intended to play a role in a continuing process
of regime formation in contrast to an entity designed to administer the provisions of a regime that
is already in place.”52
The tension between environmental and sustainable development issues continues. Some
environmental issues, such as nuclear waste contamination are not integral to sustainable
development; some sustainable development issues are not environmental (such as tele-
communications, and drug abuse among Arctic inhabitants); and some issues are both, such as the
indigenous peoples’ concerns of the effects of trade barriers on certain natural resources on their
society.53 Indigenous participants hoped that the Council could be helpful in resolving matters
such as the European Union’s regulations on wild fur imports, and other economic measures with
extraterritorial effects: “The Arctic Council should be … addressing legal questions in respect to
US/EU trade-restrictive actions, and the human rights implications of EU and US actions that
adversely affect the rights of Arctic peoples to self-determination and security of livelihood.”54
The Council has yet to resolve these tensions.
Nonetheless, the Council has played some new roles to date. Its Working Groups have
produced important documents, such as the SOAER, building the information base that is critical
for good management. Regional guidelines on protected areas and biodiversity monitoring
networks, and the Guides to oil spills and offshore oil and gas activities are also useful. The Council
has conveyed regional concerns to global meetings: a statement by the Council was presented to
the meeting which produced the POPs treaty.55 The Council welcomed the successful conclusion
of the POPs treaty. The current Chair of the Council stated that “the message from Johannesburg
was received with relief and enthusiasm by people living in the Arctic” and that “the Arctic Council
will not drag its feet as regards action to facilitate implementation of this Agreement.”56
III. Environmental Issues and the Arctic – Applicable

Treaties and Agreements
1. Links Between Arctic Environmental Issues and Global
Treaties and Agreements
Arctic environmental problems intersect with global problems in many ways. Many threats to the
Arctic environment come from outside the region. Treaties and other soft law agreements that
52
Young, The Structure of Arctic Cooperation: Solving Problems/Seizing Opportunities, 2000,
29.
53
Bruce A. Russell, The Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy & the New Arctic Council,
online at the Arctic Circle website maintained by the University of Connecticut: http://
arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ArcticCircle/NatResources/Policy/uspolicy1.html.
54
Milton Freeman, of the Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Submission of 3 June 1996, p. 7.
Canadian Parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Canada and the Circumpolar
World: Meeting the Challenges of Cooperation into the Twenty-First Century, 1997.
55
The International Negotiating Committee (INC 5) on the POP Convention: Intervention by
Ambassador Kari Karanko, Finland on behalf of the Arctic Council http://www.arctic-
council.org/
56
Speech by Finland as Chair of the Arctic Council to the Global Ministerial Forum and the
twenty-First Session of the Governing Council of UNEP, Nairobi 5-9, 2001, reproduced on the
Arctic Council website at www.arctic.council.org.
16
address distant sources of pollution are consequently a critical part of the Arctic legal framework.
Global treaties that apply to activities within the region, such as protection of biological diversity,
are also important.
The disproportionate impact of distant polluting activities on the Arctic can demonstrate the
need for global action in an ongoing treaty process, or can spur states to act on a new global treaty.
Atmosphere and chemical management treaties are examples of this phenomenon. Persistent
organic pollutants (POPs), greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change and ozone depleting
substances are all generated primarily in industrial countries far from the Arctic, yet all have serious
negative impacts on the Arctic environment.
In other cases, global treaties incorporate provisions for the Arctic. Article 234 of the United
Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (known as LOSC) was specifically designed for the polar
regions. It gives coastal states the right to adopt and enforce non-discriminatory laws for the
prevention and control of marine pollution from vessels in ice-covered areas where, among other
possible impacts, pollution of the marine environment could cause major harm to or irreversible
disturbance of the ecological balance. The emerging International Polar Navigation Code
developed under the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is intended to create a unified
code of rules for ships navigating in both polar regions, building upon existing treaties administered
by the IMO, such as MARPOL, and associated safety and training treaties.57 Protocols under the
LRTAP Convention also contain specific references to the Arctic environment.
And in still other cases, local or regional Arctic legal arrangements embody workable versions
of the concepts found in global Conventions, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity’s
provisions regarding traditional ecological knowledge, and the special role of indigenous peoples.
These issues are discussed below.
2. Evaluations of Global Treaties and the Arctic

Environment
Under the AEPS, the Arctic states pledged to determine the extent of environmental problems in
the North and to examine whether existing international cooperative arrangements adequately
addressed these problems. As part of this work, the Arctic states have canvassed the existing global
agreements and their applicability to the Arctic environmental legal regime on a number of
occasions.
Prior to the creation of the AEPS in 1991, an overview of these agreements was carried out.58
At the first preparatory meeting for the AEPS in 1989, Ministers agreed to examine both the state
of the Arctic environment and to consider the existing legal instruments for the protection of that
environment. This report identified 26 ‘global conventions’ which could impact upon the
protection of the Arctic environment, and broke them down into four groups: atmosphere, marine,
wildlife and other, such as the trans-boundary hazardous waste.
After identifying six environmental problems and priorities, the AEPS looked at international
mechanisms to control each of these problems. The legal regime was found inadequate in five out
57
Lawson Brigham, “The Emerging International Polar Navigation Code” in Davor Vidas, ed.
Protecting the Polar Marine Environment, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2000.
58
List of Major International Instruments and Policy declarations pertaining to the Arctic
Environment, presented at the Ministerial meeting, Rovaniemi, Finland, 1991.
17
of six cases, with the exception being radioactivity (AEPS, section 4). The first AEPS group,
AMAP, was established to address these six environmental priorities.
The other three initial Working Groups of the AEPS also had links to international environ-
mental legal regimes. PAME was assigned the responsibility of using the terms of the 1982 Law
of the Sea Convention to improve marine environmental protection (AEPS, section 7). The EPPR
group was committed to improving emergency prevention, preparedness and response (AEPS,
section 8) and CAFF was to cooperate on the protection of Arctic flora and fauna using existing
global agreements (AEPS, section 9).
Continuing the focus on international arrangements, the various Working Groups of the Arctic
Council have also surveyed global agreements and evaluated their effectiveness in protecting the
Arctic environment in other reports, such as:
• PAME, Report to the Third Ministerial Conference on the Protection of the Arctic
Environment, March 1996. This report summarized the major sources of pollution to the
Arctic marine environment, and analyzed the international legal instruments related to four
areas of Arctic marine environmental concern: land-based activities, dumping of wastes
at sea, shipping activities, and offshore oil and gas activities.
• CAFF, International Conventions and Other Legal Instruments relevant to the Conserva-
tion of Migratory Birds, May 1998.
• CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No. 8: A Summary of Legal Instruments and National
Frameworks for Arctic Marine Conservation, July 2000.
• EPPR, Analysis of the Adequacy and Effectiveness of Existing Arrangements and

Agreements, August 2000. This analysis concluded that the international agreements and
arrangements currently in force, agreed to, or under consideration appear to address the
present needs for trans-Arctic cooperation in emergency prevention, preparedness and
response. The greatest threat to the Arctic from a release of a pollutant requiring
emergency response is from the transportation and storage of oil.
3. Existing Global Agreements and the Arctic

3.1 Marine
Nearly all international conventions dealing with the protection of the marine environment have
some application in the Arctic, which encompasses the world’s most northern oceans. These
treaties include the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and
its 1978 Protocol, commonly referred to as MARPOL59 and the 1972 Convention on the Prevention
of Marine Pollution by dumping of waste and other matter, commonly known as the London
Convention, particularly its 1996 Protocol,60 and the Law of the Sea Convention.61
Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC). Only five of the eight Arctic states are parties to the
major comprehensive treaty on the law of the sea and marine environmental protection, which
59
ILM, Vol. 12, 1973, 1319.
60
ILM, Vol. 36, 1997, 1.
61
A number of maritime treaties deal with emergencies, maritime accidents, training and
certification of ship crew and officers, and navigation. These treaties are not addressed in this
report.
18
entered into force in 1994. Iceland, Finland, Norway, Russia and Sweden are parties to the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). However, Canada, the United States and
Denmark have not yet ratified the Convention though they have signed it. Most Arctic states
generally abide by its provisions, as LOSC reflects customary international law.
The purpose of the Convention is to establish rules to govern all uses of the ocean and their
resources. It includes customary rules of international law governing use of the ocean as well as
introducing new legal concepts and regimes.
The legal limits established by LOSC include:
• internal waters,
• a 12-nautical mile territorial sea,
• a 24-nautical mile contiguous zone, and
• a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
Areas outside the jurisdiction of states, such as the high seas beyond states’ 200-mile nautical
limit as well as the continental shelf are also regulated by LOSC.
States have different degrees of responsibility and power depending on which territorial zone
activities take place in. Within a state’s internal waters, a coastal state has absolute sovereignty.
Within the territorial sea zone, no farther than 12 nautical miles from the baseline, a coastal state
still retains complete sovereignty but must allow innocent right-of-passage to foreign ships.
Willful and serious marine pollution and unauthorized fishing are acts inconsistent with innocent
passage.62
Within a contiguous zone, a state has sovereign rights and exercises powers over customs,
physical immigration or sanitary laws and regulations. And within the exclusive economic zone,
a coastal state has sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring, exploiting, conserving and
managing both living and non-living natural resources of the seabed, its sub-soil and the waters
above it and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the
zone. Within this zone, the coastal state determines allowable the catch of living resources and
harvest limits, if any, for these resources. Any other state which is allowed to harvest marine living
resources must abide by the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal state.
Additional legal provisions under LOSC apply to the continental shelf, the high seas, and the
seabed area. LOSC established three new international organizations: the International Seabed
Authority which organizes and controls activities in the seabed area; the International Tribunal for
the Law of the Sea established to settle disputes; and the UN Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf.
Part XII of LOSC addresses protection and preservation of the marine environment. All states
are obligated to take measures necessary to prevent pollution from any source and all maritime
areas. In addition, all signatory states are to take measures necessary to ensure that activities under
their jurisdictions will control and are conducted so as not to cause damage by pollution to other
states and their environment. Pollution from a variety of sources is regulated by LOSC. States are
62
CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No. 8: A Summary of Legal Instruments and National
Framework for Arctic Marine Conservation, CAFF International Secretariat, July 2000, pg.
7.
19
to adopt domestic laws controlling marine pollution resulting from land-based activities, vessels,
and ocean-dumping. Article 234 of LOSC on the prevention, reduction and control of marine
pollution from vessels in ice-covered areas within a state’s exclusive economic zone, is found in
this Part.
International Regulation of Ship Source Pollution. The 1972 Convention on the Preven-
tion of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Waste and other Matter (London Convention) may be of
particular use in the Arctic environment, since the Arctic may be used as a dumping ground for
hazardous wastes.63 The volume of radioactive waste dumped into the Arctic Ocean by the Soviet
Union is twice as high as that of all previously known dumping worldwide.64 The potential
contamination hazard associated with approximately 130 decommissioned Soviet nuclear subma-
rines most of which remain afloat and have spent nuclear fuel aboard are additional problems.65
Proposed new acceptance of nuclear waste for disposal by Russia, as well as proposals for Japanese
nuclear shipments to ship highly radioactive nuclear wastes from Europe to Japan via the Arctic
using Russia’s nuclear powered ice-breakers demonstrate the need for increased attention to
dumping and navigation.66
The London Convention regulates dumping of waste at sea. In 1993, a moratorium on the
dumping of radioactive substances was adopted within the framework of the Convention. The
Convention was substantially amended by a 1996 protocol, which employs a “reverse listing”
approach: all dumping is prohibited except those materials listed in Annex 1 of the Protocol.67
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) entered
into force in 1973 and is augmented by a 1978 Protocol which entered into force in 1983. This
Convention, like other marine conventions, is administered by the International Maritime Organi-
zation (IMO). The IMO has a marine environment committee which defines areas in need of special
protection from maritime activities. These include special areas (SAs) under Annexes to
MARPOL and particularly sensitive sea areas (PSSAs). Restrictions on shipping are in place for
areas with these designations. The designations are used in the Antarctic. No such areas have been
designated in the Arctic, based on the Arctic Council’s Inuvik Ministerial decision in 1996 that no
additional legal instruments for the protection of the marine environment were required, and that
states should concentrate on ratification and implementation of existing treaties. As coastal states
have the power to adopt stricter standards for ice-covered areas pursuant to Article 234 of LOSC,
the use of these additional IMO designations may not be necessary. Canada, for example, strictly
regulates vessel source pollution in its Arctic waters, requiring ships to meet specified standards
for vessel construction, navigation and operation.68
63
Donald R. Rothwell, “Global Environmental Protection Instruments” in Davor Vidas, ed.,
Protecting the Polar Marine Environment – Law and Policy for Pollution Prevention
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2000, 64.
64
Olav Schram Stokke, “Radioactive Waste in the Barents and Kara Seas: Russian Implemen-
tation of the Global Dumping Regime” in Davor Vidas, ed. Protecting the Polar Marine
Environment – Law and Policy for Pollution Prevention (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press), 2000, 65.
65
David VanderZwaag, “Land-based Marine Pollution and the Arctic,” in Davor Vidas, ed.,
66
Greenpeace, “New Polar Route Plans for Japanese Nuclear Shipments are Desperate Mad-
ness,” January 22, 2001 at http://www.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/nuctrans2001jan22.html.
67
ILM, vol. 36, 1997. The Protocol makes limited exceptions for cases of emergency.
68
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, S.C. 1970, c-68.
20
The parties to MARPOL undertake to prevent pollution of the marine environment by the
discharge of harmful substances or effluents. Harmful substances are defined to include any
substance which if introduced into the sea, is liable to create hazards to human health, harm living
resources and marine life and damage amenities or interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea.
MARPOL’s chief controls are on vessel discharges. MARPOL is a framework convention
regulating different types of pollutants in Annexes.69
MARPOL is generally considered to be a successful convention. Ship-generated pollution has

fallen since it was adopted – from approximately 35% of global marine pollution sources in the
early 70’s to approximately 10% by the early 90’s.70
Control of Land-Based Marine Pollution
Land-based pollution is the least regulated form of marine pollution. Experts estimate that
approximately 80% of the pollution load in the oceans originates from land-based activities,
including municipal, industrial and agricultural wastes and run-offs as well as atmospheric
depositions.71 Though the estimates of 80% of marine pollution emanating from land-based
sources do not likely not apply in the Arctic because of the relatively low population inhabiting the
area, there are nonetheless many land-based sources resulting from urban areas, mining wastes, oil
and gas operations, nuclear activities, industrial complexes such as smelters, pulp and paper
mills.72 Land-based pollution was recognized as a problem in the AEPS and the work of AMAP
and PAME continue to focus on addressing these sources of pollution.
Article 207 of LOSC contemplates the further development of international regulation to

reduce land-based pollution. An additional global soft law agreement, the Global Program of
Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities was concluded
in 1995. The Global Program of Action (GPA) calls upon states to develop national level plans to
address land-based sources of pollution which enter the marine environment.
In 1998, the Arctic Council ministers adopted PAME’s regional program of action (RPA) for
the protection of the Arctic marine environment from land-based activities. The goals for the
regional program of action are: to protect human health, prevent and reduce degradation of the
marine environment and coastal areas; remediate contaminated areas; support conservation and
sustainable use of marine resources; maintain biodiversity; and maintain cultural values. The RPA
69
The annexes are:
1 the prevention of pollution by oil (Annex I);
2 the control of pollution by noxious liquid substances in bulk (Annex II);
3 the prevention of pollution by harmful substances in package forms (Annex III);
4 the prevention of pollution by sewage from ships (Annex IV) (not yet in force);
5 the prevention of pollution by garbage from ships (Annex V); and
6 the prevention of air pollution from ships (Annex VI).
70
Donald R. Rothwell, “Global Environmental Protection Instruments” in Davor Vidas, ed.
71
Global Program of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based
Activities, UNAP, “Why have a global program of action” on the GPA website at http://
www.gpa.unap.org/about.
72
For more information on potential sources of land-based activities to marine pollution can be
found in David VanderZwaag, “Land-based Marine Pollution and the Arctic,” in Davor Vidas,
ed. Protecting the Polar Marine Environment – Law and Policy for Pollution Prevention
21
notes nine source categories of pollution which are priorities for regional action. The RPA also sets
management objectives. For example, one management objective states that at the regional level,
Arctic states should “develop and adopt Arctic-wide environmental guidelines on opening,
operating and closing mines in the Arctic coastal zone. Mining is defined as the extraction, smelting
and concentration of ore.”73
Other Marine Agreements
The gap analysis conducted by the Arctic states in the EPPR Working Group identified that the
management of hazardous substances; control of vessel traffic in the arctic seas and abandoned
ships/wreck removal were potential high-risk activities, not currently covered by a comprehensive
legal regime. However, as another international forum, the IMO, exists to address these gaps, no
regional action was prescribed.
The unique conditions of polar navigation in the Arctic through ice-covered areas creates the
potential for greater risks from ships, especially those carrying dangerous loads, or not properly
equipped for icy waters. A new Polar Code being developed by the IMO is meant to augment
additional risks imposed on shipping due to harsh climatic conditions in polar waters.
In addition, UNEP is establishing a Regional Action Plan to Protect the Arctic Marine
Environment with the eight Arctic states. UNEP could act as a catalyst to prompt further action
on marine environmental protection.
3.2 Atmosphere
Global treaties on atmospheric protection are significant for the Arctic. Climate change agreements
will impact ecosystem health, and constrain hydrocarbon resource development. Toxic chemicals
produced and consumed elsewhere disproportionately and disturbingly migrate to and concentrate
in the Arctic region. The Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) convention, recently concluded,
makes special provision for Arctic peoples. The ozone treaty regime seeks to reduce the depletion
of the ozone layer, most apparent in the holes over the polar regions.
The international environmental agreements on the atmosphere all have a potential for
positive effect on the Arctic environment. The major international treaty on trans-boundary air
pollution is the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) and
associated Protocols.74 Negotiated by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, the
Convention does not apply to states outside Europe and North America. Other significant global
treaties to protect the atmosphere include the ozone regime, consisting of the 1985 Vienna
Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer; the climate change treaty, including the 1992 United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change and its 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and the new POPS treaty,
2000.
LTRAP
The Convention on Long-Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) was initially drafted in
response to scientific evidence demonstrating acid rain in Europe. Signed in 1979 and entered into
73
Arctic Council, PAME, Regional Programmes of Action for the Protection of Arctic Marine
Environment from Land-Based Activities, Minister of Public Works and Government Services
Canada, 1999, Available on the Arctic Council website.
74
All information on LRTAP and its Protocols can be found at http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/.
22
force in 1983, the LRTAP was the first internationally legally binding framework agreement
outlining general principles for regional co-operation on trans-boundary air pollution abatement.
LRTAP has been ratified by all 8 Arctic states except the United States which has accepted it. The
Arctic is not mentioned in the Convention. There are a number of Protocols to the Convention.
Three Protocols to LRTAP specifically mention the Arctic:
1. The 1994 Oslo Protocol on Further Reduction of Sulphur Emissions, entered into force in
1998,75 sets long-term targets for reduction of sulphur emissions. Parties to the Protocol
have differing emission reduction obligations. The Preamble contains the following
paragraph: “Mindful that measures to control emissions of sulphur and other air pollutants
would also contribute to the protection of the sensitive Arctic environment.”
2. The 1998 Aarhus Protocol on Heavy Metals, not yet in force, is aimed primarily at
controlling cadmium, lead and mercury emissions.76 The Protocol also aims to reduce
emissions from industrial sources, combustion processes and waste incineration. Parties
must apply specified limit values to emissions from stationary sources; the Protocol
contains suggestions for best available techniques (BAT) for these sources. Parties are
required to phase out leaded petrol. In addition, the Protocol lists management measures
for products containing mercury. The Preamble contains the following paragraph:
“Mindful that measures to control emissions of heavy metals would also contribute to the
protection of the environment and human health in areas outside the UN/ECE region,
including the Arctic and international waters.”
3. The 1998 Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)77 not yet entered into
force, is aimed at the control, reduction or elimination of discharges, emissions and losses
of sixteen substances (eleven pesticides, two industrial chemicals and three by-products/
contaminants). The Protocol bans the production and use of eight substances (aldrin,
chlordane, chlordecone, dieldrin, endrin, hexabromobiphenyl, mirex and toxaphene). It
specifies elimination of four other substances at a later stage (DDT, heptachlor,
hexaclorobenzene, polychlorinated biphenyls). The Protocol also restricts the use of DDT,
HCH (including lindane) and polychlorinated biphenyls. Provisions are included for
destruction or disposal of the wastes of banned products. The Protocol also obliges Parties
to reduce their emissions of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins/furans and
hexachlorobenzene below their 1990 levels (or an alternate year between 1985 and 1995).
Specific emission limits are established for municipal, medical and hazardous waste
incinerators. The Preamble contains three paragraphs that refer to the Arctic:
Recognizing that emissions of many persistent organic pollutants are transported

across international boundaries and are deposited in Europe, North America and the
Arctic, far from their site of origin, and that the atmosphere is the dominant medium
of transport,
75
Canada, Norway and Sweden have ratified it. Denmark (not applying to the Faeroe Islands and
Greenland) has approved it. Finland has accepted it. The Russian Federation has signed it.
Neither Iceland nor the USA has signed it (status of ratification as of 13 November 2000).
76
Canada (with declaration upon ratification), Norway (with declaration upon ratification) and
Sweden have ratified it. Finland has accepted it (with declaration upon ratification). Denmark,
Iceland and the USA have signed it. The Russian Federation has not signed it (status of
ratification as of 15 November 2000).
77
Canada (with declaration upon ratification), Norway (with declaration upon ratification) and
Sweden have ratified it. Denmark, Finland, Iceland and the USA have signed it. The Russian
Federation has not signed it (status of ratification as of 15 November 2000).
23
Acknowledging that the Arctic ecosystems and especially its indigenous people, who
subsist on Arctic fish and mammals, are particularly at risk because of the
biomagnification of persistent organic pollutants,
Mindful that measures to control emissions of persistent organic pollutants would also
contribute to the protection of the environment and human health in areas outside the
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s region, including the Arctic and
international waters.
The Heavy Metals Protocol and the POPs Protocol are both aimed at pollution abatement in
the Arctic.78 The Protocols include significant restrictions but no obligations for specific
percentage reductions in annual emissions. Approximately half the substances targeted in the
POPs Protocol are not subject to immediate elimination.79
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Treaty. The recently concluded POPs treaty gained
impetus from scientific studies demonstrating that POPs were present in the tissue, blood, and even
breast milk of Arctic residents living far from any sources of those pollutants. A statement by the
President of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference to POPs delegates about the despair of discovering
contaminated country food and the fact that Inuit mothers have to think twice about breast-feeding
their infants helped achieve the strong treaty.80
The treaty implements control measures for the production, use, import, export, and disposal
of POPs. The treaty is designed to reduce and eliminate 12 substances (aldrin, chlordane, DDT,
dieldrin, dioxins, endrin, furans, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, PCBs, toxaphene), most
of which are to be immediately prohibited. A POPs Review Committee will regularly review
additional substances for potential addition to the Annexes. Parties are to develop action plans to
reduce the total releases of POPs formed and released unintentionally from anthropogenic sources
(dioxins, furans, HCB and PCBs), with the ultimate goal of elimination. The action plans are to
include, the use of substitute or modified materials, products and processes to prevent the formation
and release of POPs, as well as the promotion of best available technologies and practices for
replacing existing POPs and preventing the development of new ones. The treaty was concluded
in December 2000 and formally adopted and signed in Stockholm in May 2001. The treaty will
enter into force upon the 50th ratification.81
The agreement contains a preambular paragraph acknowledging the vulnerability of Arctic

ecosystems, and especially indigenous communities, at particular risk because of the biomagnification
of POPs, and contamination of traditional foods. This paragraph is based on suggestions by
Canada, supported by the United States.82
78
D. L. VanderZwaag, “International Commons” (1998), 9 YB iel Law at 272.
79
Ibid.
80
See e.g. ICC, Northern Contaminants and Global POPs Programme, at http://
www.inusiaat.com, and IPEN, The Arctic POPs and the Recognition of a Duty, http://
www.ipen.org.
81
http://www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID=186&ArticleID=2712
http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/download/asc/enb1554e.txt.
82
Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Summary of the Fifth Session of the Inter-governmental Nego-
tiating Committee for an International Legally Binding Instrument for Implementing
International Arctic on Certain Persistent Organic Pollutants (IISD: Winnipeg), 2000. http:/
/www.iisd.ca/linkages/download/asc/enb1554e.txt.
24
Northern indigenous peoples played a significant role in the development of the POPs Treaty,
through direct interventions and suggestions for negotiating text at POPs preparatory meetings, to
media events, to providing a symbolic Inuit carving to the diplomatic chair of the meeting.83
Ozone Treaties
In the mid-1970s, scientists raised concerns that the Earth’s stratospheric ozone layer could be at
risk of depletion from the release of CFCs and other anthropogenic substances. In 1981, the UNEP
Governing Council established the Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts for the
Elaboration of a Global Framework Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. Four years
later, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer was adopted. Parties agreed
to take “appropriate measures” to address the actual or potential harm to the ozone layer by human
activities. The Convention, primarily encouraging co-operation in research, monitoring and data
exchange, did not specify what appropriate measures are, nor did it specify substances that cause
ozone depletion.
The Convention did, however, provide for future protocols. It also marked the first time
nations committed to addressing a global environmental problem before damage was actually
shown. Shortly after the Convention, the first proof of ozone depletion over the Antarctic was
established. Negotiations on specific controls eventually led to the signing in 1987 of the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.84
This Protocol entered into force in 1989. The Protocol’s final objective is the elimination of
ozone-depleting substances. As an interim measure, the Protocol required developed countries to
reduce by 50% the production and consumption of 1986 levels of CFCs by 1999 and to freeze at
1986 levels the production and consumption of halons. Although the Protocol did not establish
comprehensive obligations for all ozone-depleting substances, it was designed to be flexible; its
provisions can be strengthened as more scientific evidence is brought to light.85
Recent criticisms of the Protocol are that its’ amendments have not been quickly ratified, new
ozone-depleting substances have been introduced into trade, and trade-in CFC-based products has
increased. The Antarctic ozone hole in September 2000 covered the largest area ever recorded, but
the “stubbornly critical state of the ozone layer” did not translate into decisions on any additional
state action at the most recent Meeting of the Parties.86
The Arctic is not mentioned in the Convention or the Protocol. All eight circumpolar states
are parties to the Convention and the Protocol.
Climate Change
Climate change is a significant environmental problem in the Arctic. Evidence from the Arctic
showing the effects of climate change impacts has been unveiled at climate change meetings.
Alarmingly, the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that if
83
Terry Fenge “Indigenous Peoples and Global POPs” in Northern Perspectives, Fall 2000.
84
http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/download/asc/enb1912e.txt. http://www.unep.org/ozone/
vienna.htm.
85
http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/download/asc/enb1912e.txt. http://www.unep.org/ozone/
mont_prt.htm.
86
Extracted from an analysis of MOP-12 in the Earth Negotiations Bulletin [http://www.iisd.ca/
linkages/download/asc/enb1912e.txt].
25
current emissions trends continue, scientists are unable to rule out the possibility that the Arctic
Ocean may become totally ice-free as a result of climate change.87
The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) entered
into force on 21 March 1994.88 Prompted by scientists’ warnings, the UNFCCC was developed
in much the same way as the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.89 The
primary objective of the Convention is the “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system” (Art. 2). The UNFCCC establishes a framework for action to control or reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. Parties are to be guided by the precautionary principle in anticipating, preventing
or minimizing the causes of climate change (Art. 3.3). The UNFCCC also provides that policies
and measures to deal with climate change take into account all greenhouse gas sources as well as
sinks, but provides no guidance on the balance between sources and sinks.
In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC was adopted, but it has not yet entered into force.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, industrialized countries are required to meet specific targets for
greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Negotiations broke down in November 2000 at the Sixth
Conference of the Parties, and the future of the Protocol is unclear.90
Though the Arctic is not mentioned in the Convention, climate change impacts in the Arctic
are often demonstrated or referred to at climate change meetings to show the severity of this
environmental issue. For example, at the last Climate Change Summit, video footage from a small
community on the edge of the Arctic Ocean was released, which contained testimony from
indigenous people about the effect of melting ice and open oceans on their traditional way of life.
“The changes they are seeing are dramatic: exotic insects and animals have arrived on their island;
the sea ice is thinner and further from the community, carrying with it the seals and polar bears upon
which the people depend for food; and permafrost melting has caused an inland lake to drain into
the ocean and foundations of the community’s buildings to shift and crumble. Life for the people
of Sachs Harbour has become increasingly difficult and unpredictable – a dire warning of the
negative impacts of climate change predicted to occur elsewhere in the world.” 91
All eight circumpolar states are parties to the Convention.
3.3 Biodiversity: Protection of Species and Ecosystems

Conservation of the extraordinary biological diversity of the Arctic region is a high environmental
priority. Human activities can have a great effect on the Arctic’s relatively simple ecosystems and
negatively affect the region’s biological diversity.92
The legal framework to conserve biodiversity was strengthened by the adoption of the 1992
Convention on Biological Diversity, the first treaty to address conservation and protection of
ecosystems on a global scale.
87
UNEP, Significant Changes Likely In The Arctic From Climate Change, Nairobi/Arendal,
Feb.19, 2001, at http://www.grida.no/inf/news/news01/index.htm.
88
http://www.globelaw.com/Climate/fcc.htm.
89
John Vogler, The Global Commons: Environmental and Technological Governance, 2nd ed.
(England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2000), at 136.
90
http://www.iisd.ca/climate/index.html.
91
Sila Alangotok: Inuit Observations on Climate Change, IISD at www.iisd.ca.
92
GEO-2000, Chapter 2 – The Arctic – Biodiversity (Nairobi): UNEP, 2000.
26
Management regimes previously existed to protect single Arctic species such as:
• northern fur seals (1911 North Pacific Sealing Convention: 4 state members);
• polar bears (1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears: 5 state members); and
• caribou (1987 Agreement on the Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd: bilateral
Canada/the United States).
Though originally developed to prevent over-harvesting, habitat protection is now a key

feature of these single species agreements. Perhaps the most important in this group of treaties,
given the large numbers of whale species in the Arctic, the commercial significance of whaling to
states such as Iceland and Norway, and the importance of whales to indigenous peoples throughout
the region, is the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.93 A strong legal
regime is required to protect key Arctic species relied on for subsistence. Fish and marine mammals
are the most common foods, and caribou the most common land food for peoples of the North.94
Trade of wildlife species, governed by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora is an issue in the Arctic, as traditional subsistence use of wildlife
declines and the need for economic returns grows.
Growth of a regional protected areas network is another biodiversity conservation priority.

Significant Conventions in this regard include those dealing with the protection of natural and
cultural heritage and wetlands.
Biodiversity Convention
Biodiversity means the whole spectrum of life on earth. It includes species diversity, genetic
diversity and ecosystem diversity.95 Biodiversity is in crisis: species extinctions have reached a
rate not seen since the time of the dinosaurs. The biodiversity crisis arises from “inadequate nature
reserves, human overpopulation and non-sustainable resource consumption, species extinction,
endangered ecosystems, impending rapid climate change, and imperfect laws.”96
The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) or Biodiversity Convention was

developed to provide a legal response to the crisis. The Convention recognizes the “intrinsic” value
of biodiversity and has three themes:
• conservation of biodiversity,
• sustainable use of biological resources, and
• equitable sharing of benefits derived from the use of biological resources.
Each of these 3 themes gives rise to legal obligations. The legal obligations are contained in
the Articles of the Convention and in subsequent Decisions adopted at the Conference of the Parties
to the CBD.
93
94
SOAER, Peoples of the North.
95
See Edward O. Wilson, The Diversity of Life (Cambridge Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press), 1995.
96
R. Edward Grumbine, Ghost Bears: Exploring the Biodiversity Crisis (Island Press, 1994) at 20.
27
The most relevant Articles of the CBD for the Arctic environment are:
• Article 2, Definitions, which defines biodiversity as “the variability among living

organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic
ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity
within species, between species and of ecosystems” and sustainable use as “the use of
components of biological diversity in a way and at a rate that does not lead to thee long-
term decline of biological diversity, thereby maintaining its potential to meet the needs and
aspirations of future generations”;
• Article 7, Identification and Monitoring; and
• Article 8, In-Situ Conservation, which commits Parties to:
1. establish a system of protected areas (8a);
2. prevent the introduction, control or eradication of alien species which can negatively
impact biodiversity (8h);
3. respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous

and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation
and sustainable use of biological diversity (8j); and
4. develop or maintain necessary legislation and/or other regulatory provisions for the
protection of threatened species and populations (8k).
A regional biodiversity status report and strategic plan have been produced by one of the Arctic
Council’s Working Groups, the CAFF.
Consumptive Use of Wild Species
The harvest of wild species is the single most common feature of natural resource use that cuts
across all the regions and peoples of the Arctic.97 It is also one of the most controversial activities,
as the anti-sealing and anti-whaling lobbies demonstrate. Yet sustainable use is argued by some
to have more potential in the Arctic, as a tool for both biodiversity conservation and economic gain.
If done with the goal of creating conservation benefits, commercial consumptive use could be of
value to Arctic communities, not only for economic benefits, but as a way to preserve traditional
lifestyles and cultural values and safeguard the environment. Sustainable use programmes can
serve as practical economic incentives to conserve natural habitats when there is a high degree of
local participation and local participants derive an equitable share of benefits from that use.98
Opponents of consumptive use, however, are numerous. Many people worldwide oppose whaling
and sealing.
Wildlife Trade
The international wildlife trade, worth billions of dollars annually, has caused massive declines in
the numbers of many species of animals and plants. The scale of over-exploitation for trade aroused
97
WWF, Guidelines for Consumptive Use of Arctic Species, at http://www.ngo.grida.no/
wwfap/ccu/.
98
IUCN, Draft Sustainable Use of Wild Species – A Guide for Decision-Makers, 2000,
Sustainable Use Initiative, www.iucn.org.
28
such concern for the survival of species that an international treaty was drawn up in 1973, the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), to protect wildlife from this
threat.
CITES established a world-wide system of controls on international trade in threatened

wildlife and wildlife products by stipulating that government permits are required for this trade.
Protection is provided for species in two main categories.
The most endangered species are listed in Appendix I and include all species threatened with
extinction which are or may be affected by trade. Arctic species in this category include all whales
covered by the IWC whaling moratorium. Norway has formally objected to both the IWC
moratorium and the CITES trade ban. Norway’s decision to resume commercial whaling was
based on evidence that the stock of minke whales was abundant and that whales could be harvested
on a sustainable basis without risk of extinction.99 Norway has now unilaterally decided to resume
export of an unlimited amount of meat and blubber from North Atlantic minke whales, to Japan,
Iceland, and other nations on the basis that trade is a logical consequence of sustainable resource
management.100
Other species at serious risk are listed in Appendix II, which includes all species which
although not necessarily currently threatened with extinction may become so unless trade is subject
to strict regulation. Arctic species on Appendix II include polar bears and narwhals.
Appendix III lists all species which any Party identifies as being subject to regulation within
its jurisdiction for the purpose of preventing or restricting exploitation. For example, Canada has
listed the walrus as an Appendix III species.
Whales and Marine Mammals
Whaling is a traditional occupation in the Arctic, dating back as far as 4000 years.101 In 1946, the
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) was adopted, administered by the
International Whaling Commission (IWC). The IWC banned commercial whaling in 1982, by
establishing a catch limit of zero for all commercial whaling. But under controversial provisions
allowing scientific research and aboriginal subsistence, whaling still occurs. Catch limits for
aboriginal subsistence whaling are relatively small: in 2000, the catch limits for bowhead whales,
Eastern North Pacific gray whales, West Greenland fin whales, West and East Greenland minke
whales totalled about 300.102 The IWC allowed membership for any interested state, expecting that
only countries with whaling industries would participate. However, many non-whaling states are
members and wield considerable influence over the proceedings.
Some nations that still engage in coastal whaling created the North Atlantic Marine Mammals
Commission (NAMMCO) partly out of frustration with the IWC. According to government
99
Government of Norway, “Norwegian minke whaling” at http:/odin.depino. Trond Bjorndal
and John Conrad, “On the resumption of the Norwegian minke whale hunt” in Whaling in the
North Atlantic – Economic and Political Perspectives, ed. Petursdottir, (Rekjavik: University
of Iceland), 1997.
100
Export of Norwegian Whale Products, Government of Norway, at http:odin.depino.
101
Deborah Robinson, “International Dimensions of Global Change: Arctic Applications,”
unpublished, 1997, available on the Arctic Circle website at www.arcticcircle.uconn.edu, 17.
102
52nd Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, July 2000, at IWC website:
http://www.marine.gov.uk/iwc/htm.
29
representatives, the organization was born out of dissatisfaction with the IWC’s zero-catch quota,
lack of IWC competence to deal with small cetaceans and the need for an organization to deal with
other marine mammals, such as seals.103 The NAMMCO Agreement, which was signed in 1992
by Norway, Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands, provides a mechanism for cooperation on
conservation and management for all species of cetaceans (whales and dolphins) and pinnipeds
(seals and walruses) in the region, many of which have not before been covered by such an
international agreement.104 NAMMCO is hosted by Norway, which remains a member of the
IWC, but has lodged objections to the commercial whaling ban, and continues to set national catch
limits for minke whales.
A Global Plan of Action for the Conservation, Management and Utilization of Marine
Mammals has also been developed by UNEP, FAO, IWC and the IUCN.105
Fisheries
Consistent with troubling trends worldwide, an increasing proportion of fish stocks were exploited
beyond maximum sustainable yield levels in the North Atlantic and the North Pacific until the late
1980s or early 1990s. In the North Atlantic, the situation seems to have improved for some stocks
in the 1990s, while in the North Pacific the situation remains unstable.106
Harvesting of fish is important as a traditional source of food for indigenous populations, and
as a source of economic wealth. For example, fish products constitute about 75% of Icelandic
exports.107 In the Canadian Arctic, the replacement value of the subsistence harvest is high, and
commercial and/or recreational fisheries provide one of the few sources of income or occupation
for the majority of the population in northern communities.108
Fishing raises a host of environmental and sustainability issues, such as the ability of fishing
technology to exceed the productive capacity of the seas, bycatch of nontarget species of fish, birds
and marine mammals, and contamination of fish through bioaccumulation of POPs.
The legal regime for fisheries is well defined, but not yet effective at preventing overfishing.
Coastal states have the sovereign right to exploit, conserve and manage the natural resources of its
waters within the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) limit.109 Once fish move
outside the EEZ, the coastal state no longer has the jurisdiction to regulate. Fish stocks that straddle
103
David D. Caron, “The International Whaling Commission and the North Atlantic Marine
Mammal Commission: The Institutional Risks of Coercion in Consensual Structures” 89 Am.
J. Int’l L. 154, reprinted in Hunter et al. International Environmental Law and Policy (New
York: Foundation Press) 1998, 1016.
104
NAMMCO’s website is at http://www.nammco.no/Default.htm.
105
GEO-2000, Global Environment Outlook (UNEP: Nairobi), 2000, chapter 2, The polar
regions.
106
FAO, The State of the World’s Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2000.
107
Kevin McCormick, “Involving Local Authorities and Indigenous Peoples in Marine Manage-
ment,” Background Paper, CAFF, IUCN, PAME Circumpolar Marine Workshop, 1999, 15.
108
R. McV. Clarke, “An Overview of Canada’s Arctic Marine Fisheries and Their Management
with Emphasis on the Northwest Territories,” in Parsons and Lear, eds., Perspectives on
Canadian Marine Fisheries Management, Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 226, 1993.
109
Article 56, LOSC.
30
or migrate between EEZs and the adjacent high seas are found in the Arctic in the Barents Sea off
the coast of Norway, in the Bering Sea, and in the Sea of Okhotsk.
The UN Convention on Straddling Stocks and Highly Migratory Stocks, also known as the UN
Fish Agreement (UNFA), provides a framework for the conservation and management of
straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks in high seas areas regulated by regional fisheries
organizations.110 The treaty incorporates the precautionary approach and the ecosystem approach,
and obligates states to minimize pollution, waste and discards of fish.
UNFA require the Contracting Parties to cooperate on straddling and highly migratory fish
stocks by participating in regional fisheries management organizations, where they exist. It
includes monitoring and inspection provisions, under which one party can inspect vessels of other
state parties, to verify compliance with internationally agreed fishing rules of regional fisheries
organizations. The Convention is not yet in force. Of the eight Arctic states, five have ratified
UNFA: Canada, Iceland, Norway, Russia and the United States.
An ongoing Arctic concern is to afford migratory species protection throughout their

migratory ranges. On the high seas, some species may be outside the scope of current protection
regimes, and may require further collaboration.111
Polar Bears
Over half the world’s polar bears are found in Canada. The global estimate of population is between
22,000 and 27,000 bears. The reminder of the world’s population is found in Russia, Greenland,
the United States and Norway.112
The Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears and Their Habitats was signed in 1973,
during the height of the cold war tension, by Canada, the United States, Denmark, Norway and the
former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.113
The Agreement prohibits hunting and killing of polar bears, except for cases of bona-fide
scientific purposes, conservation purposes, preventing serious disturbances of the management of
other living resources, and by indigenous people using traditional methods of hunting.114 Two of
the signatory states, Norway and Russia, have completely banned polar bear hunting, while the
remaining states allow limited aboriginal hunts. In practice, very few polar bears are hunted even
with these exceptions. Aircraft and large motorized vehicles may not be used for the taking of polar
bears.
Parties are required to take appropriate action to “protect the eco-system of which polar bears
are a part, with special attention to habitat component such as denning and feeding sites and
migration patterns.” To meet this obligation, some Arctic states have created protected areas for
polar bears such as in North and East Greenland National Park and the Melville Bugt Game
110
(1995) 34 ILM 1542.
111
Recommendations, Marine Protection, CAFF, IUCN, PAME, Circumpolar Marine Work-
shop, 1999, 12.
112
Making International and Environmental Agreements Work: the Canadian Arctic Experience,
1999 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Chapter
6, Exhibit 6.3 – Polar Bear Facts.
113
(1974) 13 ILM 13.
114
Arctic Polar Bear Agreement, Article III.
31
Preserve. The three largest Polar Bear denning areas are all protected at Wrangel Island (Russian
Federation), on King Karl’s Land at Svalbard (Norway), and in western Hudson Bay (Canada).
The parties occasionally meet, but each state generally has achieved the objectives of the
agreement using its own domestic laws, policies and programs. Though it lacks a secretariat, an
enforcement mechanism, and annual meetings and gives wide freedom given to the five signatory
states to set their own management regimes for polar bears, the Agreement is generally considered
to be very successful.115
In general, polar bear populations across the Arctic are stable. However, additional threats to
polar bears have arisen in recent years, aside from hunting. Climate change, industrial and tourism
development, and pollution all cause stress for polar bears. The agreement covers none of these
subjects. Systematic habitat protection for polar bears also has not yet been completed across the
Arctic region. One gap in the protection of polar bears’ habitat is off-shore feeding sites.116 The
CAFF Working Group analyzed protection of critical habitat for the polar bear, and found that
though breeding sites were protected, very little of the species’ core range is protected.117
Other single species agreements
In addition, the Arctic states have concluded a number of agreements bilaterally and regionally to
conserve specific species.
Caribou are an important Arctic species. In 1987, an agreement between Canada and the
United States on the conservation of the Porcupine caribou herd was concluded.118 The purpose
of this agreement is to facilitate cooperation and coordination among wildlife management
agencies, users of the herd and other land-users and land-donors in the herd’s range. The parties
commit to conserving the herd and its habitat. This agreement establishes an international
management body, the International Porcupine Caribou Board which has the power to make
recommendations only. Each party to the agreement must carry out the recommendations through
their own domestic legal regime. The stability of this agreement is currently an issue, due to
renewed calls for oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, home of this
caribou herd.
Reindeer are another important Arctic species, not currently protected by any regional
agreement. Reindeer husbandry is an important economic and cultural activity in the Arctic. The
Association of World Reindeer Herders exists to safeguard this activity. Infrastructure develop-
ment, such as roads, mining, power plants and lines have damaged reindeer habitat. A preliminary
report from UNEP forecast destruction of between 50 – 80% of existing reindeer grazing areas in
the Arctic by 2050, based on extrapolation from 1950 – 2000 data.119
115
Simon Lyster: International Wildlife Law (Cambridge, 1985), 55. Cited in Donald Rothwell,
The Polar Regions and the Development of International Law, (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press), 1996 at 216.
116
Making International Environmental Agreements Work: the Canadian Arctic Experience,
1999 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Chapter
6.3 – Polar Bear Facts.
117
Arctic – A Preliminary Analysis, 1996.
118
Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the USA on the
Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd, CTS 1987/31.
119
C. Nellemann, “Historical and future developments in accessible land areas for Saami reindeer
herding – the year 2050 scenario” online at http://www.grida.no/prog/polar/globio/reindeer.htm.
32
The Arctic Council is sponsoring a project on sustainable reindeer husbandry.120 Legal
protection for reindeer herding rights and pasture land has been identified as an issue requiring
further exploration.121
Legal protection for fur seals is more limited than in the Antarctic, which strictly regulates
sealing under the Seals Convention or CCAS. In the Arctic, one of the earliest bilateral wildlife
treaties in the world, the 1911 Convention on the Preservation and Protection of Fur Seals, was
not extended in 1984 due to refusal from the United States.
Conservation of Arctic breeding birds presents a daunting challenge. Migratory birds from
the Arctic reach every part of the world except the interior of Antarctica. Of the 450 species of birds
which breed or have bred in the Arctic region, 279 spend winters outside the Arctic region.122 Of
the numerous international agreements that deal with the protection of nature, many have relevance
to birds and their habitat, particularly the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of
Wild Animals; the Ramsar Convention; CITES; and the Convention on Biological Diversity. More
specifically, many regional programmes and action plans address conservation of migratory birds.
A comprehensive review conducted in 1998 found that all of the 279 Arctic breeding species
obtained “some measure” of protection from one or more of the international or regional legally
binding agreements. The report generally concluded that the further a migratory bird travels south
from the Arctic, the less likely it is to find itself, or its habitat, adequately protected by legally
binding conventions or agreements.
The inter-related nature of environmental threats is demonstrated by the negative impacts of

numerous activities on species. Global warming is adversely affecting two arctic animals – the
Peary Caribou and the Polar Bear. In 1993, 3,000 Peary Caribou lived in the High Arctic. Four
years later, only 75 remained. Peary Caribou survive the winter by digging under the snow to feed
on vegetation. Global warming models predict that with heavier snowfalls and more freezing rain,
more caribou will be lost. Climate change is also causing problems for polar bears. A recent study
by a University of Toronto scientist predicts that the thinning ice on Hudson Bay will lead to the
demise of Canada’s southernmost population of polar bears within 40 years.123
Protected Areas
Overall, about 85% of Arctic land and 98% of Arctic seas are outside protected areas.124 All Arctic
states have promised to protect a minimum of 12% of each Arctic ecozone. The current level of
protection varies from a low of 4.9% of Russia’s Arctic land mass, to 45.7% of Greenland/
Denmark’s land mass.125 The Arctic Council Working Group on the conservation of Arctic flora
and fauna (CAFF) has completed a Strategy and Action Plan for the Circumpolar Protected Areas
120
The website for this project is at http://www.reindeer-husbandry.uit.no.
121
Golovnev and Osherenko. Siberian Survival, The Nenets and Their Story (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press), 1999, and Proceedings of Sustainable Reindeer Herding and Husbandry
workshop, Mar 8 – 11, 2000 at http://www.reindeer-husbandry.uit.no/beginning.
122
Derek A. Scott, Bird Life International, Migratory Birds of the Arctic – A Review of
International Conventions and Other Legal Instruments Relevant to the Conservation of
Migratory Birds, CAFF, 1998.
123
Ottawa Citizen, December 2, 2000.
124
CAFF Strategic Plan for the Conservation of Arctic Biological Diversity, September 1998,
available on the CAFF website at http://www.grida.no/prog/polar/caff/stratplan.htm.
125
GEO-2000, Global Environment Outlook, (UNEP: Nairobi), chapter 2, The Polar Regions.
33
Network (CPAN). The CPAN Strategy and Action Plan suggests that countries use the IUCN
Protected Areas classification system to develop a regional network of protected areas, and urges
countries to try to provide strict protection for at least 12% of each eco-zone within the Arctic.126
No specific terrestrial or marine sites are recommended.127
Another CAFF document, the strategic plan for the conservation of Arctic biological diversity,
recognizes that most of the Arctic territory will remain outside protected areas.
There are several international agreements related to protected areas which are relevant to the
Arctic.
All Arctic states are parties to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Impor-
tance especially as Waterfowl Habitat: all states except Iceland are parties to the World Heritage
Convention, and all Arctic states except the United States are parties to the Biodiversity Conven-
tion. However, only two of the Arctic states, Norway and Sweden, are parties to the Convention
on the Conservation of Migratory Species or Wild Animals (the Bonn Convention).
Ramsar Convention
The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat

(Ramsar Convention) signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, is an intergovernmental treaty which
provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and
wise use of wetlands and their resources. There are presently 122 Contracting Parties to the
Convention, with 1034 wetland sites, totalling 78.2 million hectares, designated for inclusion in
the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance. The Ramsar Convention requires a Party
to designate suitable wetlands within its territory for inclusion in a List of Wetlands of International
Importance.
Ramsar sites have been designated in the Arctic by most of the Arctic states. In Canada, there
are five Ramsar sites in the Arctic: Dewey Soper Migratory Bird Sanctuary, McConnell River
Migratory Bird Sanctuary, Polar Bear Pass National Wildlife Area, Queen Maud Gulf Migratory
Bird Sanctuary, and Rasmussen Lowland.128
World Heritage Convention
The World Heritage Convention establishes a system of collective protection for cultural and
natural heritage of outstanding universal value. Under this system, the Parties are to designate
cultural and natural heritage within their territories and to take measures for its protection,
preservation and presentation.
The Convention defines natural or cultural sites which can be considered for inscription on the
World Heritage List, and sets out the duties of State Parties in identifying, protecting and preserving
potential sites. Parties are encouraged to integrate the protection of the cultural and natural heritage
into regional planning programmes.
126
Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), Circumpolar Protected Areas Network
(CPAN) – Strategy and Action Plan, CAFF Habitat Conservation report No. 6 (1996), 20.
127
David VanderZwaag, International Law and Arctic Marine Conservation and Protection: A
Slushy, Shifting Seascape (1997), Vol. 9, Georgetown International Environmental Law
Review 303 ed., 316.
128
A full list of sites may be found on the Ramsar Convention website at http://www.ramsar.org.
34
There are at least ten designated World Heritage sites in the Arctic states, including the joint
Canada-United States site of Kluane-Wrangell-St. Elias-Glacier Bay-Tatsenshini and Alsek;
Russia’s Kamchatka Volcanoes and Sweden’s Laponian area, home to Saami people who practise
traditional reindeer herding.129
3.4 Resource Extraction and Waste Disposal

Resource extraction laws are increasingly important for Arctic environmental protection as well,
as the diamond rush replaces the moribund gold mining industry, and as onshore and offshore oil
and gas exploration boom.
Each nation’s domestic legal regime governs mining and hydrocarbon development. Re-
gional issues arise, for example, with pipeline proposals that cross national boundaries, offshore
oil and gas development outside national jurisdictional limits, and differential benefits flowing to
local communities and indigenous peoples from resource extraction projects. Regional guidelines
on resource extraction are few in number. Pollution prevention and abatement guidelines compiled
by the World Bank may be applicable in the Arctic, as evidence of widely accepted global standards
on particular management methods, pollution control technologies, and industry sector guide-
lines.130
With few exceptions, the Arctic states have generally not entered into cooperative manage-
ment regimes for non-living resources. Some believe there has been no need to jointly regulate
resources in areas where sovereignty is settled.131 However, treaties or guidelines on hazardous
waste movement, oil and gas, and mining are all relevant to the Arctic.
Basel Convention – Trans-boundary Hazardous Waste
The 1989 Basel Convention on the Control of Trans-boundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes
and their Disposal entered into force in 1992. One of the treaty’s guiding principles is that
hazardous wastes should be dealt with as close to where they are produced as possible. It creates
a system of advanced informed consent when hazardous wastes are imported and exported. Each
shipment of hazardous waste must be accompanied by a movement document from the point at
which a trans-boundary movement begins to the point of disposal. Hazardous waste shipments
made without such documents are illegal. In addition, there are outright bans on the export of these
wastes to certain countries. Trans-boundary movements can take place, however, if the state of
export does not have the capability of managing or disposing of the hazardous waste in an
environmentally sound manner.132
This issue is relevant to the Arctic because of purported proposals coming out of Russia, in
particular, to accept significant imports of hazardous waste for economic gain.133 Significant
129
All the World Heritage sites are listed on the website at http://www.unesco.org/whc.
130
World Bank, Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook, (Washington, DC: World
Bank), 1998.
131
132
The text of the treaty and explanatory Guides can be found on the website at http://
www.unep.ch/basel/.
133
Giles Whittell, “Russia to accept nuclear waste – for $30 billion,” Vancouver Sun, Dec. 22,
2000, A9c.
35
volumes of industrial waste generated in Arctic areas such as Siberia and the Kola Peninsula, and
the potential for such wastes to be transported through Arctic waters, also makes this Convention
relevant.134 By contrast, the export of hazardous waste is prohibited to the Antarctic Treaty Area,
by Article 4.6 of the Basel Convention.
Oil and Gas
The Arctic region may contain some of the world’s largest petroleum reserves, located both on land
and on the continental shelf. Domestic legal regimes regulate oil and gas extraction on land.
However, trans-boundary areas that could be impacted by oil and gas development remain
controversial.
Renewed proposals have been made in the United States to permit oil and gas drilling in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, home to 129,000 caribou, 300,000 snow geese and an uncounted
number of polar bears. The area is a calving ground for a caribou herd that criss-crosses Alaska
and Yukon and is also sacred ground for aboriginal groups. It might also contain vast amounts of
oil beneath its ice, snow and tundra. The oil industry wants to drill at what wildlife experts call the
refuge’s “biological heart,” an area that has been closed to oil operations since the refuge was
established in 1960.135
Offshore oil development is another environmental issue in the Arctic. The first offshore oil
project in the Arctic Ocean, Northstar, is under development by BP Amoco, and under attack by
Greenpeace International.
The particularly sensitive nature of the Arctic environment, prompted several Arctic Council
Working Groups to cooperate on the preparation of Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines.136
PAME, EPPR and AMAP consulted with representatives of other governments, non-governmental
organizations, industry, indigenous people, and the scientific community to prepare the guidelines.
The Guidelines assume that Arctic petroleum activities will be conducted in compliance with
applicable international law. Existing legal instruments generally related to offshore oil and gas
activities include LOSC, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships;
MARPOL 73/78 and the London Convention 1972.
The guidelines should help both industry and the Arctic nations’ central and regional
authorities to plan and develop oil and gas activities. Though the guidelines are non-binding, they
are intended to encourage the highest standards currently available. They are not intended to
prevent States from setting stricter standards, where appropriate.137
Mining
No global legally binding agreements concerning mining currently exist. Lately, some NGOs and
government representatives have discussed the need for regional guidelines to protect the Arctic
environment from the harmful effects of mining.
134
135
See http://www.anwr.org; http://arcticcircle.vconn.edu/ANWR; http://www.arctic-
caribou.com.
136
The Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines, June
13, 1997, can be found on the PAME website at http://www.grida.no/pame/FRreports.htm.
137
Ibid.
36
Global initiatives on mining are proliferating. One recent initiative, the Mining Minerals and
Sustainable Development (MMSD) project, has the objective of “identifying how mining and
minerals can best contribute to the global transition to sustainable development.” A two-year
project which began in April 2000, MMSD is designed both to produce concrete results during that
period and to create structures capable of being carried forward thereafter.138 One potential result
from this project could be recommendations on new regulatory regimes for mining at the global
or regional level.
Another new initiative concerns voluntary guidelines to protect human rights in security
operations linked to international mining and energy projects.139 The voluntary guidelines are the
culmination of a series of discussions between the United States and the United Kingdom
governments and BP, Royal Dutch/Shell, Rio Tinto, Texaco, Chevron and Freeport MacMoran,
working with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Prince of Wales Business Leaders’
Forum, International Alert and Business for Social Responsibility.
Radioactive Pollution
A number of treaties guard against radioactive pollution, such as the 1986 Convention on Early
Notification of a Nuclear Accident, the 1994 Convention on Nuclear Safety, and the 1997 Joint
Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste
Management. Discussion of these treaties is beyond the scope of this report. Radioactive pollution
is a significant concern in the Arctic region, and other regional organizations such as the Barents
Euro-Arctic Region are tackling this issue.
3.5 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

EIA can help avoid or minimize negative impacts from resource and other developments. All the
Arctic states have domestic EIA statutes. Many Arctic countries have also signed the Convention
on EIA in a Trans-boundary Context (UNECE), also known as the Espoo Convention.140 That
treaty obligates states to conduct EIAs for trans-boundary impacts. The project proponent’s state
decides if notification and consultation are required because of potential significant impacts.
New Arctic EIA Guidelines prepared by the Arctic Council are more stringent than the Espoo
Convention, encouraging a broader range of projects for inclusion than the developments listed in
Appendix I of the Convention. The Guidelines specifically do not replace or overrule existing
procedures or guidelines adopted by international, national or provisional laws, land claim
agreements or other regulations. Developed to address common Arctic features such as climate,
ecosystems and socio-cultural attributes, the Guidelines were finalized and adopted in 1997.141
The Guidelines raise issues unique to Arctic such as permafrost, and provide assistance on
issues such as traditional knowledge and public participation. The use of the precautionary
principle is strongly encouraged.
Areas demanding particular EIA attention in the Arctic are noted in the Guidelines, including
sites of great sensitivity or unique geomorphology and areas of spiritual, cultural and other socio-
economic value, as well as areas important for traditional resource use.
138
From the MMSD website at http://www.iied.org/mmsd/index.html.
139
Congo-Online listserv, 15 January 2001.
140
(1991), 30 I.L.M. 800.
141
The guidelines can be found at http://www.grida.no/aria/eiaguide.pdf.
37
3.6 Indigenous People and indigenous rights

Indigenous peoples are the original inhabitants of the North. They account for 80% of the
population in Greenland, 15% in Arctic Norway, and as little as 3-4% in Arctic Russia.142
As the pace of resource development accelerates in the Arctic, the concerns of indigenous
peoples become more acute. Large scale development of natural resources has the potential to
threaten the traditional values and economies of indigenous societies.
Indigenous peoples play a role in the legal regime, as direct participants in regional
coordinating bodies such as the Arctic Council; and through land claims and treaty settlements.
Indigenous peoples have some control over land and resources in the new territory of Nunavut and
the territories of Yukon and Northwest Territories, Canada; in the “home rule” government of
Greenland; in Alaska; and in northern Fennoscandia, through institutions such as the Saami
Parliament.143 The law related to indigenous rights to land in the Russian Federation is unsettled:
a Law on the Legal Status of the Numerically Small Peoples of the North is in draft form.144
Different legal models have been used by the Arctic states to grant decision-making authority to
indigenous peoples.
The international law of human rights, and emerging legal principles of indigenous rights
therefore affect environmental protection in the Arctic. Members of local communities have
valuable traditional ecological knowledge which should be incorporated into environmental
decision making. Questions of impacts and benefits from resource development are also relevant
to this discussion.
Work on a nonbinding Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is proceeding

at the United Nations, and most of the Council’s Permanent Participants are members of the UN
Working Group on Indigenous Peoples.
Article 5 of the Draft Declaration states that “in applying the provisions of this Convention,
… the social, cultural, religious and spiritual values and practices of these peoples shall be
recognized and protected, and due account shall be taken of the nature of the problems which face
them both as groups and as individuals.” This right to cultural integrity may entail legal obligations
on the Arctic states. One commentator has said that this right may be onerous for the Arctic states
because they will have to try to exercise control over the traditional ways of life for indigenous
communities, often harmed by activities outside their control, such as POPs affecting traditional
foods: “States are now obligated to take positive steps towards safeguarding the environment of
indigenous peoples to show the importance of a spiritual, physical and/or emotional nexus to the
land and its fruits in terms of its cultural rights.”145
The most specific existing international treaty related to indigenous rights is the 1989 ILO
Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal peoples in Independent Countries, commonly
142
SOAER.
143
See web site of the Saami Parliament at http://www.sametinget.se/english/st. for more
information.
144
Andrei Golovnev and Gail Osherenko, Siberian Survival – The Nenets and Their Story
(Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press) 1999, 23.
145
Jennifer McIver, “Environmental Protection, Indigenous Rights and the Arctic Council: Rock,
Paper, Scissors on the Ice?,” (1997), vol. 10, Georgetown International Environmental Law
Review 147, 157.
38
referred to by its ILO treaty number, No. 169.146 This Convention contains provisions to safeguard
the environment, safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples to participate in the use, management
and conservation of natural resources and to prohibit relocation without consent.
Settlement of outstanding indigenous land and resource claims in the Arctic could have a
major impact on environmental protection, resource management control shifts either completely
or partially to indigenous groups. In many Arctic states, indigenous rights are constitutionally
protected. As a result, central governments are constrained in their ability to make regional
decisions about Arctic land and resource management without the participation of indigenous
peoples, either through consultation or through more direct representation at the Arctic Council
“table.”
3.7 Trade Agreements

Trade agreements are relevant to the Arctic in a number of ways, though a general discussion of
the trade/environment debate is beyond the scope of this report. Specific trade issues relevant to
Arctic environmental protection concern barriers to trade in marine mammal products. Domestic
laws in the United States ban the importation of products derived from marine mammals. The
United States does not wish this issue to be discussed by the Arctic Council’s Sustainable
Development Working Group, despite the wishes of the other Arctic states.147 Campaigns against
the harvesting of whales, seals, and other fur bearers have dramatically changed life in the Arctic,
by making trapping unprofitable, and requiring Northern residents to find alternate livelihoods,
which may or may not be economically and environmentally profitable.148
Incorporation of environmental/trade provisions such as Article 1114 of the North American

Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which prohibits waiving environmental standards to attract
investment, or those in the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC),
may be an appropriate goal for an Arctic agreement.149 Calls for an Arctic free trade agreement
have already surfaced, and a regional environmental agreement could well complement this type
of agreement, if enacted.
4. Greater Use of Existing Global Agreements

As this review shows, many global agreements include the Arctic, and were designed to address
environmental problems that surface most acutely in the Arctic. Many of the most urgent Arctic
environmental issues, such as climate change and persistent organic pollutants can only be solved
through global, multilateral approaches as the roots of these problems lie outside the Arctic. The
participation of Arctic states, civil society organizations, and the Arctic Council in these global
regimes is critical, to raise the Arctic dimension of the problems, and to propose Arctic solutions
that will make a difference.
Common criticisms of global environmental treaties, such as overlap, duplication, and lack of
coordination are also relevant from the Arctic viewpoint. Recent increased efforts to improve
international environmental governance structures will assist areas such as the Arctic, which are
disproportionately affected by activities beyond the reach of their national governments.
146
28 ILM 1382 (1989).
147
David VanderZwaag, “International Commons – Arctic,” (1999) vol. 10 YbIEL, 306.
148
Deborah Robinson, “International Dimensions of Global Change: Arctic Applications,”
unpublished, 1997, available on the Arctic Circle website at www.arcticcircle.uconn.edu.
149
The full text of NAFTA is available at http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org, and the NAAEC at
http://www.cec.org.
39
Global treaties also have different rules about participation of non-state actors. Harmonizing
these rules would assist the efforts of groups who want to participate in this complex maze of
international meetings. The special role given to indigenous peoples in the emerging Arctic legal
regime does not exist elsewhere in the global environmental treaty system. Consideration of how
best to incorporate indigenous participation into these other regimes could be a topic for the Arctic
Council.
Some global treaties could be further tailored to address Arctic environmental issues. For
example, the special provisions of LOSC related to ice covered areas could be used more in the
Arctic. Use of this treaty would require ratification by all the Arctic states.
Global treaties could also be used to add a layer of additional protection and management to
certain sites. For example, the World Heritage Convention could be used to designate more
regional sites of particular ecological significance, and achieve some measure of additional
protection. This proposal has been made for protection of the calving grounds of the Porcupine
Caribou Herd in the United States and Canada.150 The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat could be used more in the Arctic to
promote conservation of these biologically threatened areas.
Additional research would likely identify even more possible ways that existing international
environmental agreements could be used to address the particular needs and environmental
problems of the Arctic.
IV. The Antarctic Environmental Legal Regime

Though the two polar regions share common environmental traits, they are opposites in strategic
importance, history, and culture. Geographically, they are opposites: Antarctica is the seventh
continent, and the Arctic is an ocean ringed by states.
This chapter will briefly describe the Antarctic Treaty System, a model of environmental
management and conservation. The description will provide background for the next chapter,
which compares the legal regimes of the two polar areas. Though it is tempting to look to the
Antarctic as a model for future legal development in the Arctic, key critical differences in the two
regions make this unlikely.
1. The Antarctic
The land mass at the south pole is unique. It does not belong to any state. An immense ice desert,
Antarctica’s 14 million square kilometers sheet of ice contains most of the world’s ice, and if
melted, fresh water. The world’s climate depends on this “natural refrigrant.”151 Larger than either
Europe or Australia, characterized by extreme weather conditions, Antarctica is the only continent
with no history of human habitation. And its famous inhabitants also set Antarctica apart –
penguins, seals, whales, myriad species of birds. There are seven species of Antarctic penguins:
Adelie, Gentoo, Macaroni, Chinstrap, Rockhopper, King and Empire. Penguins fly under water
150
Nigel Bankes and Terry Fenge, testimony to SCFAIT, cited in SCFAIT Report, Canada and
the Circumpolar World, chapter 9, p.7.
151
Jack Yves Cousteau and Bertrand Charrier, “The Antarctic: A Challenge to Global Environ-
mental Policy” in Yerhoeven et al, The Antarctic Environment and International Law (1992),
cited in Hunter, Salzman and Zaelke, International Environmental Law and Policy, (New
York: Foundation Press), 1076.
40
with remarkable flipper-like motions, rather than flying in the air like other birds. There are six
species of seals: Crabeater, Leopard, Weddell, Ross, Elephant and Antarctic Fur Seals. Tiny
crustaceans called krill are the key link in the Antarctic food chain. Marine mammals, fish and sea
birds all depend on krill. The inhospitable climate, unique environment and lack of indigenous
human residents or development make the Antarctic a great natural laboratory, so it is not surprising
that the predominant activity in the Antarctic is science.
2. Overview of the Antarctic Treaty System

The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) remains the only international legal regime that has managed
the affairs of a whole continent and its region.152 From the perspective of managing an entire
continent, the ATS must be considered a success, even a “world order miracle.”153 No major
disputes have arisen requiring resolution under the treaty and all major contentious issues have been
peacefully resolved. The sovereign claims of the original seven Antarctic claimants (Argentina,
Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom) still exist but are largely
left unexercised. In addition, both the United States and the Russian Federation have reserved the
right to make claims, but have not yet made any claims.
The ATS was not designed to protect the environment but has continually evolved in that
direction since the first treaty was signed in 1961. When the Madrid Protocol on Environmental
Protection came into force in 1998, the shift of this treaty system towards environmental protection
was complete. Commentators are of the view that the ATS represents a model for international
environmental law.154
The 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty formally recognizes
the ATS as comprising “the Antarctic Treaty, the measures in effect under the treaty, its associated
separate international instruments in force and the measures in effect under those instruments (Art.
1(e)).
The four main agreements are:
1. The Antarctic Treaty, (AT) 1961,
2. The Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals,
3. The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR),

and
4. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (also known as the
“Madrid Protocol”).
Each of the components of the ATS is discussed below.155
152
153
Richard Falk, ‘The Antarctic Treaty System: Are There Viable Alternatives?’ in Arnfinn
Jorgensen-Dahl and Willy Ostreng (eds.), The Antarctic Treaty System in World Politics,
(London, 1991), 399 in Rothwell, 457.
154
155
John Heap, Editor, Handbook of the Antarctic Treaty System, 8th Edition, 1994, available on
line at http://www.icair.iac.org.nz/Subfolder/treaty/handbook/forward_eighth.html. This
Handbook is a very useful reference guide, containing all documents comprising the ATS,
41
3. The Antarctic Treaty

The Antarctic Treaty provides the base of the Antarctic Treaty System.156 Originally negotiated
to end competing sovereignty disputes and give scientific research supremacy over resource
extraction and military activities, this treaty now provides the foundation for a sophisticated
environmental legal regime.157 One of the first “framework” conventions, the treaty itself is a
relatively short and uncomplicated agreement.
Objectives. The objectives of this treaty are to:
• freeze sovereignty claims (Article IV);
• prohibit military activity and ensure that the Antarctic is used for peaceful purposes only
(Article I); and
• provide for freedom to carry out scientific research (Article II).
Parties. The 12 nations listed in the preamble signed the Antarctic Treaty on 1 December 1959
at Washington, D.C. The treaty entered into force on 23 June 1961; the 12 signatories became the
original 12 consultative nations, known as the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCP).
As of December 2000, 15 additional nations had achieved consultative status by acceding to

the treaty and by conducting substantial scientific research in Antarctica. Another 17 nations have
acceded to the Antarctic Treaty. These nations agree to abide by the treaty and may attend
consultative meetings as observers.
How Policy Is Set. The Consultative Parties set policy by adopting recommendations at
annual meetings, called Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCM).
Geographic Scope. The treaty applies to all land south of sixty degrees south latitude, the
Antarctic Treaty Area (ATA).
Prohibitions. The treaty prohibits nuclear explosions (Article V), radioactive waste disposal,
(Article V) and any measures of a military nature, such as the establishment of military bases and
fortifications, the carrying out of military maneuvers, as well as the testing of any type of weapons
in the treaty area, (Article I). The use of military personnel or equipment for scientific research or
for any other peaceful purposes is specifically allowed.
Scientific Focus. The treaty encourages the continuation of scientific research subject to the
provisions of the treaty, Art. II. Under the provisions of Art. III, the parties agree to support the
exchange of information on specific programs and scientific observations and results. The
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) operates informally as the scientific advisory
body to the treaty.158
including the Antarctic Treaty, the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic
Treaty, ‘measures [recommendations] in furtherance of the principles and objectives of the
Treaty’, and separate instruments dealing with seals and living resources.
156
The text of the Antarctic Treaty is published in the United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 402, 71;
The text of the treaty is available online in a number of places. One site for the text is http:/
/www.nsf.gov/od/opp/antarct/anttrty.htm.
157
158
SCAR maintains a website at <http://www.scar.org.>.
42
Sovereignty. Art. IV(2) provides that, while the treaty is in force, there can be no enhancement
of an existing sovereignty claim and there is a prohibition on the assertion of new claims of the
enlargement or existing claims. Seven states have made territorial claims for the Antarctic, all of
which still exist, and have been effectively “frozen” for the life of the treaty. The treatment of
sovereignty claims is viewed as one of the most important factors in the stability of the region –
Article IV has been called the “diplomatic master stroke” of the treaty.159
Inspections. Another significant section of the treaty allows the Parties to conduct inspections
to investigate alleged treaty violations. Article VII allows for unannounced on-site inspections by
designated observers of any Consultative Party of all areas of Antarctica, including all stations,
installations and equipment within those areas, and all ships and aircraft at points of discharging
or embarking cargoes or personnel in Antarctica. Aerial inspection is also permitted. The
inspection provisions were included to allow Parties to confirm that no military activities were
taking place, but are now used to monitor environmental measures as well. Inspections are now,
for example, carried out on board tourist vessels. Since 1961, at least thirty-one official inspections
have been carried out, and no violations of the treaty have been reported.160 However, Greenpeace
has alleged violations of the treaty after doing its own private inspections of scientific stations and
bases.161 The right of state parties to make unannounced inspections set an important precedent
in international law, and has been repeated only rarely, primarily in fisheries agreements.
Enforcement and Dispute Resolution. The Antarctic Treaty encourages the peaceful
settlement of disputes by the parties. Article X, requires the Parties “to exert appropriate efforts,
consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, to the end that no one engages in any activity in
Antarctica contrary to the principles or purposes of the present treaty.”
Amendment or Modification. Art. XII provides for two types of amendment processes: i)
ordinary amendment or modification occurring during the life of the treaty, ii) holding of a review
conference. The ATS has evolved without formal amendment or modification of the original
treaty. The Antarctic Treaty has been supplemented by additional treaties and by one important
Protocol.
Secretariat. The Antarctic Treaty System does not have a formal permanent secretariat.
Decision-making occurs through the recommendations made at the annual Consultative Meetings
hosted in rotation by Consultative Parties.
Environmental Protection. A product of its times, drafted in the late 1950s, the original
Antarctic Treaty was negotiated more to resolve sovereignty and manage resources rather than to
protect the environment. Environmental protection, originally considered as a means to preserve
the continent as a pristine laboratory for research, is now perceived to be an end in its own right.162
The sole provision related to the environment in the treaty states that the Consultative Parties
can make recommendations at an ATCM about the preservation and conservation of living
resources.163 In 1964, this provision was fleshed out, when the Parties adopted Recommendation
159
Hunter, 1083.
160
Christopher Joyner, “The Legal Status and Effect of Antarctic Recommended Measures” in Dinah
Shelton, ed. Commitment and Compliance, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 177.
161
David Hunter, James Salzman and Durwood Zaelke, International Environmental Law and
Policy, (Foundation Press: New York), 1091.
162
Lee Kimball, “The Antarctic Treaty System” in John R. Twiss and Randall Reeves, eds.,
Conservation and Management of Marine Mammals, (Washington: Smithsonian Institution
Press), 1999, 203.
163
Article IX (1) (f).
43
III-8, which included the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora.
These Measures established a permit system for killing or capturing native wildlife, which was
otherwise prohibited. The “Agreed Measures” also declared the Antarctic treaty area to be a
‘Special Conservation Area’, seeking to bind not only the Antarctic Treaty parties but also to the
third parties. In addition, ‘Specially Protected Areas (SPAs) (Art. VIII) were created to protect
flora. The number of “recommended measures” adopted by consensus by the ATCP states since
the inception of the treaty number over two hundred and occupy a unique legal position in between
non-binding norms and legally binding obligations.164 In practice, the measures have been
followed by the Parties, and are now consolidated in and superseded by the Madrid Protocol, which
entered into force in 1998.
Almost all the subsequent developments of the treaty system do relate to environmental
protection. Two subsequent stand alone treaties deal with marine life conservation, and the 1991
Madrid Protocol addresses the environment in a comprehensive manner.
4. The Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals

(CCAS)
This treaty, negotiated in 1972, entered into force in 1978.165 The Seals Convention imposes catch
restrictions on sealing, and creates a closed season. The Contracting Parties agree that the six
species of seals enumerated in Article 1 shall not be killed or captured within the Convention area
by their nationals or vessels under their respective flags except in accordance with the provisions
of this Convention.
Each party exchanges statistical information on catches, and reports on the steps taken to
implement the Convention. The treaty is implemented through domestic prohibitions and
restraints, a traditional approach to conservation of a single species, in contrast to the ecosystem
approach taken by CCAMLR.166 Scientific oversight for the state reports is provided by the
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.
The Convention was negotiated because of concern that commercial harvesting of seals would
occur if left unregulated. In fact, interest in commercial sealing has waned since the Convention
was adopted, and the fur seal populations have increased. Diminishing interest in sealing reduces
the importance of this Convention.
5. The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine

Living Resources (CCAMLR)
In 1980, the Antarctic Treaty Parties adopted the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). This treaty is also open to non-Parties to the Antarctic
Treaty. CCAMLR was developed to control increased krill fishing in the early 1970s, recognizing
the critical role of krill, the main food source for many Antarctic whale, seal, bird and fish species,
in the Antarctic ecosystem. The Convention also aimed to prevent the historic overexploitation of
living resources in the region, such as fur seals, elephant seals, whales, seabirds such as penguins,
and fish.
164
Shelton, ed. Commitment and Compliance, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 162.
165
The text can be found on line at http://www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/opor/Treaties/antseal.html.
166
Duncan French, Sustainable Development and the 1991 Madrid Protocol to the 1959 Antarctic Treaty:
The Primacy of Protection in a Particularly Sensitive Environment, (1999), vol. 2:3, JIWLP.
44
The Convention covers Antarctic marine living resources, other than Antarctic seals, which
are covered by the CCAS, and whales which are covered by the International Convention for the
Regulation of Whaling. The Convention defines a Commission and a Scientific Committee to work
together to manage marine living resources in the Southern Ocean. CCAMLR has a mandate to
conserve and manage mainly high-seas areas. It applies to all marine living resources between the
Antarctic continent in the south and the Antarctic Polar Front in the north (at about 50°S), which
is a zone where colder, fresher waters flowing north from the Antarctic meet the warmer, saltier
waters flowing south from the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans.
Harvesting of fish and other resources is permitted, if done according to the Commission’s
regulations. Commercial exploitation limits are set with the primary objective of ensuring no
negative effects on the rest of the food chain. The CCAMLR also has an inspection system, which
allows inspectors to board vessels from Antarctic Treaty states that are fishing in the Southern
Ocean and conduct brief inspections for compliance with catch limits.
Ecosystem Approach. The CCAMLR was one of the first global Conventions to adopt both
the ecosystem and precautionary approaches to management sustained conservation of Antarctic
marine living resources. The ecosystem approach is meant to take into account all the delicate and
complex relationships between organisms and physical processes that constitute the Antarctic
marine ecosystem. CCAMLR regulates fishing for some key species, and also attempts to ensure
that fishing does not adversely impact other species. For example, krill harvesting is regulated and
monitored directly, and the potential effect which harvesting may exert on species that either eat
krill or which in turn are eaten by krill predators is also monitored.167 Though the regime is soundly
based in science and law, in practice illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing continues in the
Convention area and challenges the effectiveness of the Antarctic Treaty system.168
6. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the

Antarctic Treaty (Protocol or Madrid Protocol) 1991
The Protocol on Environmental Protection entered into force in 1998, and completed the
transformation of the Antarctic Treaty from an antimilitary, research focussed regime to one
devoted almost entirely to environmental protection. The regime’s purpose is set out in Article 2:
“The Parties commit themselves to the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment and
designate Antarctica as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science.”
The Protocol was spurred by concerns about the effects of increasing Antarctic tourism and
by publicity from NGOs about pollution at the research stations. Greenpeace’s World Park Base
monitoring station and reports and media releases were instrumental in publicizing these issues.
Maritime accidents in both polar regions also increased public concern about protecting the
Antarctic environment.
An additional key reason for negotiation of the Protocol was continuing controversy over
mining. In the early 1970s, the oil embargo imposed by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries and renewed commercial interest in the Treaty Area prompted the development of a
treaty to regulate all mineral activities, including drilling for oil and gas.169 Countries negotiated
167
From the CCAMLR website at www.ccamlr.org.
168
UNEP, GEO-2000 Global Environment Outlook, (UNEP: Nairobi), 2000, chapter 2, The
Antarctic.
169
Lee Kimball, “The Antarctic Treaty System” in John R. Twiss and Randall Reeves, eds.,
Press), 1999, 209.
45
a Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA or the

Minerals Convention) in the 1980s. The purpose of CRAMRA was to create an Antarctic mineral
resource regime consistent with the Antarctic Treaty. Though adopted and signed by many states,
a vigorous NGO campaign convinced many states not to ratify this Convention. Consequently, due
to lack of ratification, CRAMRA has yet to enter into force.
In place of the failed Minerals Convention, the Protocol, “one of the most protective
international agreements the world has seen,” was adopted.170 The Parties to the Antarctic Treaty
signed the Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty on October 4,
1991 after two years of negotiation.171 The Protocol came into force in 1998.
The Preamble to the Protocol establishes two principles: the need to protect the Antarctic
environment and dependent and associated ecosystems, and the desire to “supplement the
Antarctic Treaty.” Protection of the Antarctic environment is necessary for scientific reasons, as
well as in the interest of mankind. The idea of supplementing the treaty, rather than adopting a
“free-standing” convention, was a significant concession to those who supported maintenance of
the existing system.
Obligations. The central obligation of the Protocol is found in Article 3, Environmental

Principles, which states that activities in the Antarctic treaty area shall be planned and conducted
with the fundamental considerations in mind of:
• protecting the Antarctic environment;
• protecting its wilderness and aesthetic values; and
• protecting its value as an area for the conduct of scientific research.
Article 3(2) requires activities to be planned and conducted so as to limit adverse impacts on
the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems, Scientific research is to be
given priority over all other activities. The detailed procedures for environmental impact
assessment found in Article 8 and Annex I strengthen the requirement for advance planning to
minimize adverse environmental effects.
Prohibition on Mining. Any activity relating to mineral resources, other than scientific
research, is prohibited, Article 7. The prohibition on Antarctic mineral resource activities will
continue unless there is in force a binding legal regime on Antarctic mineral resource activities that
includes an agreed means for determining whether, and, if so, under which conditions, any such
activities would be acceptable.
Annexes. The Protocol has four Annexes which are in force. Each of the Annexes had its
genesis in one or more measures adopted by the Parties. The Protocol and its Annexes have
transformed the soft law recommended measures into new, legally binding hard law.172
The four annexes form an integral part of the Protocol:
Annex I, Environmental Impact Assessment; Annex I is the most significant of the

Annexes as it creates the procedure for an EIA. An EIA, called a Comprehensive Environmen-
170
David Hunter, James Salzman and Durwood Zaelke, International Environmental Law and
Policy, (Foundation Press: New York), 1088.
171
(1991), International Legal Materials, 30, 1461.
172
Shelton, ed., Commitment and Compliance, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 181.
46
tal Evaluation, must be prepared for any activity having more than a “minor or transitory
impact” Annex I, Art. II.
Annex II, Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora; This is a restatement and replacement
of the 1964 Agreed Measures on the Protection of Flora and Fauna.
Annex III, Waste Disposal and Waste Management; This Annex requires stringent waste
disposal standards to be used for past and present work sites.
Annex IV, Prevention of Marine Pollution; This Annex contains standards similar to those
in the MARPOL Convention, and is specifically linked to MARPOL.
In addition, Annex V, Area Protection and Management, was adopted but has not yet entered
into force. It seeks to reorganize the complex system of area management used in the Antarctic,
which consists of historic sites, historic monuments, sites of special scientific interest, specially
protected areas, specially reserved areas, and multiple use planning areas.
Institution. The Protocol establishes a Committee for Environmental Protection, to report on

and monitor the implementation of the Protocol. The Committee has no powers of enforcement.
Inspections. Article 14 sets out a system of inspection, expanding on the system used in the
Antarctic Treaty and following the procedure under CCAMLR which requires the inspection report
to be made public, and allows the inspected nation to comment on a report before it is submitted
to other nations.
Liability. Article 16 states that the Parties undertake to elaborate rules and procedures relating
to liability for damage arising from activities taking place in the Antarctic treaty area and covered
by this Protocol. Those rules and procedures shall be included in one or more Annexes to be
adopted in accordance with Article 9 (2). This Protocol has not yet been completed, though efforts
have been made by a drafting group of legal experts to prepare this Protocol.
7. Contribution to International Law

One expert commentator has noted that the ATS has made substantial contributions to international
law by:
• adopting innovative approaches to solving sovereignty disputes,
• rejecting traditional notions of territorial jurisdiction,
• creating a regime in which emphasis is given to freedom of scientific research,
• establishing protective measure for the flora and fauna of a whole continent and region,
• implementing an ecosystem approach to marine living resource management,
• prohibiting all mining activities in order to protect the environment, and
• implementing a legal system that seeks to protect the dependent and associated environ-
ment of the region from the impact of all human activities.173
173
47
V. Comparison of Polar Environmental Legal

Regimes
Comparisons with the well-developed Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) inevitably arise when
considering the relatively undeveloped Arctic legal regime. This chapter compares the environ-
mental legal regimes of the two polar regions.
The polar regions are polar opposites in many respects. In the Antarctic, land, rather than the
ocean, is the focus of the legal regime. The absence of an indigenous population and traditional
way of life also distinguishes the South from the North Pole. Industrial and resource development,
starting in the 19th century with whaling and sealing, and continuing with mining, hydrocarbon and
other industrial development, is more extensive in the Arctic than the Antarctic and has resulted
in more substantial environmental impacts. Another distinguishing factor is that Antarctica is non-
militarized while the Arctic is a highly strategic, militarized territory. The Arctic has a population
of about 3.8 million, while the Antarctic has no permanent resident population, and is visited by
only about 15,000 tourists a year.174
Conversely, similarities between the two regions abound. Both regions have harsh fragile
environments susceptible to damage from outside sources. The poles are empty, inaccessible, and
harsh. Extreme climatic conditions prevail. Unique flora and fauna set these regions apart from
more temperate zones.
Antarctica, as a single continent, with no indigenous or permanent human inhabitants, and no

commercial or industrial activities, is more easily governed by a single treaty system, with a
comprehensive environmental regime. Resolution of sovereignty over the Antarctic land mass and
its offshore areas has dominated legal discussions in that region, issues suited to be resolved by a
treaty system. The Arctic, on the other hand, is a region dominated by the existing national legal
systems of the eight Arctic states, which cover not only their land areas but their marine territories,
to the limit of the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. The inhabitants of this region require
a legal regime that permits them to thrive, while at the same time protecting the fragile environment.
The patchwork nature of the environmental legal regime in the Arctic consists of domestic
environmental laws, and a developing soft law regime under the Arctic Council. The patchwork
is both an advantage as each national legal system includes many opportunities to increase
environmental protection, and a challenge in terms of coordinating the numerous different
environmental laws.
A key question is whether the environmental protection provisions implemented on the

national territory of the Arctic states and the coordinated action under the Arctic Council are
sufficient to protect the Arctic environment.
1. Relationship Between Two Polar Legal Regimes

Seven of the eight Arctic States are also Parties to the Antarctic Treaty. (The exception is Iceland).
Both regions operate under a similar decision-making structure. The Arctic Ministers meet
biennially, and Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings are also held biennially. At the biennial
meetings of the Parties to the Antarctic Treaty, the Arctic regime is discussed. The Antarctic Parties
have stressed the desirability of information exchange between the Antarctic and Arctic processes.
174
Davor Vidas, “Protecting the Polar Marine Environment: Interplay of Regulatory Frame-
works” in Davor Vidas, ed., Protecting the Polar Marine Environment – Law and Policy for
Pollution Prevention, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2000. 8.
48
Final reports of the AEPS and its successor, the Arctic Council, are provided at ATCMs. Though
noting the need for information exchange, the Parties have stressed that the political and legal
context governing activities in the Arctic and the Antarctic differ considerably.175
2. Different Legal Treatment of Common Issues

Common issue areas that drive the development of law and policy in both regions are: science,
territorial sovereignty, national security, and indigenous people and the environment.176
2.1 Science
In the Antarctic, the legal regime has a scientific research focus as opposed to the sustainable
development focus now in place in the Arctic, although clearly the scientific focus is important in
both areas.
There is interaction between the scientific activities in the Arctic and the Antarctic. The two
coordinating scientific bodies, SCAR and the International Arctic Science Committee, meet and
have carried out joint activities such as co-sponsoring a symposium on Polar Aspects of Global
Change.177 No “State of the Antarctic Environment Report” similar to the comprehensive SOAER
has yet been completed though a scoping study for such a report is under consideration.178
2.2 Territorial Sovereignty

Sovereignty concerns have been predominantly terrestrial in the Antarctic, compared to the Arctic,
where maritime boundary issues have predominated, especially with the growth of offshore areas
subject to national jurisdiction.179 The influence of international law in the Antarctic derives from
sovereignty claims, not only to the continent, but also to offshore maritime areas. In the Arctic, the
law of the sea has played an important role along with bilateral and other regional initiatives to deal
with common problems.
2.3 National security

Military activities and their environmental effects are distinguishing features between the two
regions. Military activities are prohibited by the Antarctic Treaty. The world’s two nuclear powers
dominate the Arctic region, and continue to deploy nuclear and other military forces there. An
ongoing thorn in United States-Canadian relations is the United States’ refusal to notify Canada
175
1996 Utrecht ATCM Report, Final Report of the XX Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting,
online at http://www.icair.iac.org.nz/Subfolder/treaty/treaty/atcm.html.
176
This list is from Donald Rothwell, The Polar Regions and the Development of International
Law, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1996, 44 with the addition of indigenous
people.
177
1997 Christchurch ATCM Report, Final Report of the XX I Antarctic Treaty Consultative
Meeting, online at http://www.icair.iac.org.nz/Subfolder/treaty/treaty/atcm.html.
178
Meeting of the Committee for Environmental Protection, The Hague, The Netherlands, 11-15
September 2000, available online at http://www.scar.org/mcmurdo/CEP%20III%20Papers/
IP%20SAER.
179
Cambridge University Press), 1996, 46-47.
49
when its nuclear submarines pass through Canadian waters in the North. The Russian nuclear
submarine fleet is also active in the North. “Matters related to military security” were specifically
excluded from the Arctic Council’s mandate, even though the environmental effects of those
activities have been examined, for example, in the SOAER.
2.4 Environment
Comprehensive Legal Regime vs. Voluntary Strategy and Programmes
An obvious key difference between the two polar legal systems is that the Antarctic is governed
by hard law compared to the Arctic soft law regime.
As a whole, the Antarctic Treaty provides a comprehensive regime for environmental

protection. In particular, the Madrid Protocol sets specific requirements in a number of areas. The
Arctic, in contrast, relies on a voluntary agreement, the AEPS, now transformed into the activities
of the Arctic Council and its Working Groups.
However, soft law can evolve into legally binding agreements, as for example, with the
transformation of various “agreed measures” emerging from the ATCMs, into binding require-
ments in the Madrid Protocol.
Indigenous people and the environment
One of the primary differences between the polar regions is the extent of resource activity in the
Arctic, compared to the absence of resource extraction activities in the Antarctic. The Antarctic
prohibition on resource activities, particularly mining, was made possible because no indigenous
population exists which requires economic activity for support. The difficult balance between
conservation and economic development was not an issue in the Antarctic. The absence of an
indigenous population also limits the number of activities that require regulation. In contrast, in
the Arctic, ongoing resource activities support the local and indigenous populations as well as the
far away centres of power.
The special legal position of Arctic indigenous peoples also differentiates the two regions.
Indigenous rights related to land and resource use and management present additional challenges
and opportunities in the Arctic. The absence of a native population was a factor favouring the
formation of the ATS. Decision-makers expressed the view that international administration was
inherently suited to an area with no indigenous population.180
Prevention of Marine Pollution
The two polar regimes treat the global marine treaties quite differently.
The AEPS makes several references to LOSC and the need to apply its principles to protect
the marine environment, while the Madrid Protocol, adopted in 1991, the same year as the AEPS,
does not mention LOSC at all.
In the Antarctic regime, Annex IV to the Madrid Protocol, Prevention of Marine Pollution
contains standards similar to those in the MARPOL Convention, and is specifically linked to
180
Davor Vidas, “Protecting the Polar Marine Environment: Interplay of Regulatory Frame-
works” in. Davor Vidas, ed. Protecting the Polar Marine Environment – Law and Policy for
Pollution Prevention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2000.
50
MARPOL. Conversely, in the Arctic, the AEPS does not refer to MARPOL by name at all, though
it does refer to “a number of bilateral, regional and global arrangements which presently exist to
deal with accidental pollution.”
Of MARPOL’s Annexes, the most detailed treatment of a source of pollutant is found in Annex
I, prevention of pollution by oil. This annex absolutely prohibits discharges of oil in the certain
designated “special areas,” of which the Antarctic treaty area is one. The Arctic is not yet
recognized as a special area and there is no movement to obtain the special area designation for any
region in the Arctic.181 However, the international regime of the LOSC allows domestic laws to
impose stringent pollution controls, such as Canada’s Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.
Annex II, pollution from noxious liquid substances also prohibits discharges in special areas,
again including the Antarctic treaty area, but not the Arctic.
As tourism increases in the north, discharge of sewage and garbage from vessels will be a
growing problem. Since MARPOL’s sewage annex, Annex IV, is not yet in force, this remains an
environmental problem. Increasing volumes of garbage may also pose threats to the marine Arctic
environment.
The Arctic marine environment is governed by the host of marine conventions, and the
voluntary programs developed by various Working Groups of the Council, such as the Regional
Programme of Action for the Control of Land-Based Pollution, the Emergency Guide, and the
Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines.
Atmosphere
The global atmosphere agreements have been influenced more by Arctic than Antarctic concerns
and advocacy in recent years. Airborne pollution sources affecting the Arctic environment and the
health of Arctic residents are being tackled at the global level through the global treaties, such as
the UNFCC, Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer, the recently adopted POPs Convention and the regional controls of LRTAP and its Protocols
two of which, the Heavy Metals and POPs Protocols, were specifically developed for the Arctic.
Mining
Always a controversial topic in the Antarctic, an entire treaty was drawn up to establish a regime
for regulating mineral activities. This treaty never came into force. The prohibition on mining
contained in the Madrid Protocol was only made possible in 1988 when key states refused to ratify
this treaty, buoyed by strong opposition to the existence of any mineral activity on the continent
from major environmental groups such as Greenpeace. In addition, exploitation of mineral
resources may not be economically feasible.
In the Arctic, the environmental impacts of mining are also controversial. Mineral exploration
and development are well advanced in at least three of the Arctic states: Canada, the United States
and Russia. Mining is subject to the domestic legal regulatory regimes of each Arctic state. The
effects of mining on the Arctic environment are not regulated at the global or regional level. As
yet no proposals have been made to prohibit mining in the fragile Arctic environment, but there are
increasingly frequent calls to more strictly regulate this activity and use the precautionary principle
181
Donald R. Rothwell, “Global Environmental Protection Instruments” in Davor Vidas, ed.,
51
to prevent repetition of past mining-caused environmental disasters.182 Preservation of biodiversity

requires stricter control of mining as well. Sharing of benefits from profitable resource extraction
activities is another area where the legal regime could be improved.
One of the Arctic Council Working groups has proposed that the Arctic states “develop and
adopt Arctic-wide environmental guidelines on opening, operating and closing mines in the Arctic
coastal zone.”183
Nuclear Activities – Radioactive Waste
Almost all military activities can have significant harmful environmental impacts.
As all military activities, nuclear explosions, and radioactive waste disposal have been
prohibited in the Antarctic since 1961, there is no legacy of environmental damage from these
activities.
In contrast, the Arctic remains a military and nuclear zone, with a history of contamination.
Rather than concentrating on remediation and rehabilitation, Russia in particular appears to be on
the verge of increasing nuclear risks, as evidenced by recent proposals to construct floating nuclear
power plants, ship nuclear waste via an Arctic route, and accept vast new amounts of nuclear waste
for storage and disposal.184 There are 110 decommissioned Russian nuclear submarines moored
in Arctic harbours, 70 of which contain spent fuel, and a threat from deficiencies in the entire spent
fuel management process.185 The Arctic Council is prohibited from dealing with military security
by the terms of its founding Declaration, though AMAP has examined the environmental and
human health impacts resulting from military activities.
Nuclear weapons are the major source of radionuclides in the Arctic region. Air concentra-
tions have dropped since the cessation of bomb tests and consequently the body burden in people
has decreased. Sources of future potential problems are: power plant and nuclear vessel accidents,
dumped nuclear waste and primarily, accidents with nuclear weapons. The secrecy of these
activities obscures their impacts.186
Waste Disposal
Hazardous waste import and disposal is another difference between the two regimes. In contrast
to Antarctica, where the import of hazardous waste is prohibited by the Basel Convention and the
disposal of waste for past and present work sites is subject to the strict provisions of Annex III of
182
For example, at the closed Giant gold mine, in NWT, Canada, two-hundred and sixty thousand
metric tons of arsenic trioxide are buried underground, and clean-up plans are stalled: Gail
Whiteman & Katy Mamen, Community Consultation in Mining: A tool for Community
Empowerment or for Public Relations?, Cultural Survival Quarterly, 2000.
183
Arctic Council, PAME, Regional Programme of Action for the Protection of the Arctic Marine
Environment from Land-Based Activities, 1999, HM R2.
184
Thomas Nilsen, “Floating Nuclear Plants in the Siberian Arctic?” WWF Arctic Bulletin 4.00,
2000.;Giles Whittell, “Russia to accept nuclear waste – for $30 billion,” Vancouver Sun, Dec.
22, 2000, A9c; Greenpeace, “New Polar Route Plans for Japanese Nuclear Shipments are
Desperate Madness,” January 22, 2001 at http://www.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/
nuctrans2001jan22.html.
185
AMAP Report on Issues of Concern: Updated Information on Human health, persistent
organic Pollutants, Radioactivity, and Mercury in the Arctic, Sept. 2000.
186
AMAP, SOAER, Radioactivity chapter.
52
the Madrid Protocol, the Arctic remains a dumping ground. Russia has made troubling proposals
to boost its economy by importing massive volumes of this waste.
Environmental Assessment
The detailed scheme in place in the Antarctic ensures that strict standards are applied across the
continent. The Madrid Protocol and Annex I impose stringent standards on the ATCPs for all
activities having more than a minor or transitory impact. In the Arctic, domestic law governs
environmental assessment, though the Arctic states are encouraged to follow the voluntary Arctic
EIA Guidelines.
Biodiversity Protection
Designation of the Antarctic as a natural reserve protects the continent’s biodiversity. In addition,
Annex II to the Madrid Protocol creates a legal regime to conserve Antarctic flora and fauna. A
“specially protected species” list is part of this Protocol, pursuant to Article 3 (4) and currently lists
two species: the fur seal and the Ross seal. The Protocol also contains a provision preventing the
introduction of alien species “onto land or ice shelves or into water,” in Article 4.
Without a similar treaty framework, the Arctic has incomplete legal protection for biodiversity.
Management is carried out on a species-by-species basis. Some individual species have compre-
hensive legal protection, such as polar bears. A myriad of Arctic species is not covered by a treaty
or agreement. There is no Arctic parallel to the ecosystem approach of the Antarctic’s CCAMLR,
where the spectrum of predator-prey relationships and the entire food chain are essential compo-
nents of wildlife management. There is no Arctic parallel to the prohibition on the introduction of
alien species in the Antarctic.
The Arctic Council’s activities in biodiversity protection have identified problem areas, such
as the under-representation of marine and boreal forest areas in the protected areas network, but to-
date, the CAFF Working Group’s plans to address biodiversity conservation have not generated
significant change.
Sustainable Use and Consumptive Use of Species
One particular issue promoted by some Arctic states relates to the need for sustainable use of marine
mammal and other biological resources. The United States is adamantly opposed to this idea, while
other states believe that it is an essential precondition to sustainable development in the North.
Legally, this is another key distinction between the Arctic and Antarctic regimes: Article 3.1 of the
Madrid Protocol prohibits the taking of flora and fauna without a permit. Sustainable use is legally
permitted for aboriginal subsistence in the Arctic, subject to the various domestic legal regimes of
the Arctic states. Consumptive use of species remains controversial in the Arctic, as some
prominent campaigns show, such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare campaign against
sealing, and Greenpeace and the WWF campaigns against whaling.
Protected Areas
All of Antarctica is to be maintained as a “natural reserve” according to the Madrid Protocol. The
Antarctic has a complex system for area management, which consists of Specially Protected Areas,
Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Marine Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Historic Sites and
Monuments, Specially Reserved Areas, Multiple Use Planning Areas, and CEMP [CCAMLR
Environmental Monitoring Programme] Sites.187 Annex V to the Madrid Protocol, Area
187
John Heap, Editor, Handbook of the Antarctic Treaty System, 8th Edition, 1994, available on
line at http://www.icair.iac.org.nz/Subfolder/treaty/handbook/forward_eighth.html.
53
Protection and Management, will simplify this management system, when it comes into force, by
redesignating existing areas into two types of Antarctic Protected Area, Antarctic Specially
Protected Areas (ASPAs) and Antarctic Specially Managed Areas (ASMAs). Access to ASPAs
will requires a permit; access to ASMAs will not.
In the Arctic, states use domestic protected areas designations. The CAFF Working Group
of the Arctic Council has complied information on these areas, and has conducted work to complete
a Circumpolar Protected Areas network (CPAN). CAFF uses the IUCN protected areas system of
classification. The eight Arctic states are urged to work towards a goal of protecting 12% of
representative biogeoclimatic zones in their land and marine areas. To date, the number of marine
protected areas lags far behind terrestrial areas.
3. Evolution of Two Legal Systems

Both legal systems have evolved. The Antarctic legal regime has evolved from a straightforward
short treaty to a complex series of treaties, measures adopted under the treaties, and a new
comprehensive Protocol on Environmental Protection over the space of forty years. There is
reason to believe that the Arctic system will similarly evolve. As one Arctic expert has written, even
ten years ago, no commentators would refer to the Arctic area as a region capable of having a legal
regime.188 Yet now, there is a coordinating body in place, the Arctic Council, neither an
international organization nor a secretariat, which has taken over coordination of the AEPS and
supplanted it with five Working Groups. Yet so far, the record has not produced tangible strides
forward in environmental protection for the North.189 Detailed plans of action are carried out by
the Working Groups.
Regional governance in the Arctic world has developed rapidly since the Arctic Environmen-
tal Protection Strategy was signed in 1991. This Strategy is an example of soft law, a flexible
agreement that is not legally binding, but may in future become so.
As the next chapter discusses, gaps in the international and regional agreements to protect the
Arctic environment; the lack of comprehensive protection for this region compared to the equally
remote, though uninhabited Antarctic region; and the need to incorporate principles of sustainability
and innovative features recognizing the nature of society and economy in the Arctic all point to a
need to develop an Arctic regional environmental protection agreement. The debate over the need
for a new regional agreement has reached the stage where it is one of the chief subjects of discussion
at a regional meeting.190
188
Young, Oran R., The Structure of Arctic Cooperation: Solving Problems/Seizing Opportuni-
ties, **A paper prepared at the request of Finland in preparation for the fourth conference of
Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, Rovaniemi, 27-29 August 2000, and the Finnish
chairmanship of the Arctic Council during the period 2000-2002.
189
VanderZwaag, David “ International Commons – The Arctic” in The Year in Review, 1999,
10YbIEL 303-307.
190
Young, Oran R., The Structure of Arctic Cooperation: Solving Problems/Seizing Opportuni-
54
VI. Need for Regional Arctic Agreement on
“The adoption of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy provides a useful
opportunity to develop new legal arrangements and institutions to govern an ecosys-
tem which transcends national boundaries and requires international cooperation for
its adequate protection to be assured. The soft law approach it currently envisages
provides a first step; ultimately it will be necessary to establish appropriate institu-
tional arrangements and substantive rules, perhaps similar to those applied in the
Antarctic, to ensure that agreed obligations are respected and enforced.”191
1. Accelerating Arctic change

Change in the North is accelerating. From the diamond rush in the Canadian North to proposals
for floating nuclear power plants in Russia’s far North, economic activity is flourishing. The
world’s oil companies are vying to site at least one natural gas pipeline in the North, along either
the Alaska Highway, or the Mackenzie valley route.192 Climate change is melting ice and has
produced year-round open waters in the Arctic Ocean for the first time in recorded history. Polar
shipping routes and air routes are increasing. A host of new Arctic cooperation organizations are
flourishing, from the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians from the Arctic Region, to the
Northern Forum, to the Barents Euro-Arctic Council. Indigenous organizations have gained new
power and prominence. Global non-governmental organizations, such as Greenpeace and the
World Wildlife Fund, are increasing attention in the North.193 National American organizations
are also expanding programs in the North.194 The UN family is also gaining more of a northern
dimension, with UNEP’s GRID-Arendal office as the regional focal point for Arctic environmental
information within UNEP, and the Global Environment Facility financing projects in the Arctic
ranging from an integrated ecosystem approach to conserve the largest wild reindeer population in
Eurasia to a project considering the significance of aquatic food chains as pathways of exposure
for indigenous peoples.195
2. How well is the Arctic legal regime protecting the

environment?
The answer depends on which nation is studied. The environmental prognosis for the region is
weak as long as individual Arctic nations continue to treat the environment as a low priority. Recent
191
Philippe Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law (Manchester: Manchester
University Press) 1995.
192
Proposals for the pipelines are reported in (2000) Enviroline, vol. 12:1, 3. The Mackenzie
Valley route was rejected by the Canadian government in the late 1970s following the Berger
inquiry, whose report Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland, 1977, comprehensively exam-
ined the issue of development in the North and its impact on indigenous peoples.
193
See the Greenpeace International website at www.greenpeace.org, and the WWF Arctic
Programme site at http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfap/.
194
For example, the Environmental Defense Fund has published a draft The Arctic at Risk: A
Circumpolar Atlas of Environmental Concerns, Stephanie Pfirman et al, online at http://
rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/edf/.
195
Financing Sustainable Development: GEF and the “Northern Dimension” Remarks by
Mohamed T. El-Ashry Chief Executive Officer and Chairman Global Environment Facility,
Rovaniemi, Finland, August 29, 2000.
55
examples of what many argue represent an apparent disregard of the environment include Russia’s
abolishment of its environment and forestry committees; the United States’ refusal to ratify the
Kyoto Protocol and the proposal to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas
drilling; and the limited progress Canada has made to clean up contaminated sites in its Arctic
region. The federal government, one of the largest landholders in northern Canada, has identified
some 2000 contaminated sites on federal land in the North. Of these 39% have been remediated
or are being risk managed, 48% have been assessed and require no further action, 8% still require
assessment and 5% require remediation or risk assessment.196 The Canadian Commissioner of
Environment and Sustainable Development estimates that federal funds needed for clean up of all
contaminated sites in Canada, not just those in the North, may be in the order of $2 billion, an
estimate which excludes the costs of dealing with radioactive waste.197 No cost estimates are
publicly available for clean up of Northern Canadian contaminated sites alone.
The answer also depends on which environmental issue is considered. As the preceding
chapters demonstrated, there are numerous holes in the Arctic environmental legal regime when
compared to the comprehensive regime in place in the Antarctic. PCB laden whale tissue, melting
ice from greenhouse gases produced thousands of miles away, and declining populations of some
charismatic polar species show that the environment is not yet adequately protected.
In general, pollution is more adequately addressed by binding legal agreements than

biodiversity protection, both by the global agreements in place, and by the Arctic Council.
Pollution is the focus of the more successful Arctic Council Working Groups. AMAP’s
comprehensive State of the Arctic Environment report, followed up by its 2000 report on Arctic
environment and human health addresses air, water and land-based pollutants. Other comprehen-
sive plans are the Arctic Plan to eliminate all sources of pollution (ACAP) and the Regional
Programme of Action to reduce land-based sources of marine pollution. Under the aegis of the
Arctic Council, useful new guidelines have been produced: the Arctic EIA Guidelines, the Arctic
Guide for Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response, and the Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas
Guidelines. Targeted campaigns, such as the campaign to eliminate PCBs in the Russian Arctic
are another successful programme of the Arctic Council.
Troubling pollution sources still remain untouched by the global and regional Arctic regime.
The legacy of past contamination from military and nuclear activities remains, and has not been
singled out for action by the global community or the regional harmonizing body. Military
activities are specifically exempt from the Arctic Council’s mandate, though the Council has
sponsored some work to clean up PCBs from former military installations in Russia.
The legal regime is weaker when considering protection of species and spaces and the rich
biodiversity of the still relatively untouched Arctic. The global legal regime to protect biodiversity
is not as developed as the pollution regime. The Convention on Biological Diversity, a framework
Convention, contains minimal concrete obligations for contracting parties. More issue-specific
treaties, such as CITES, are useful adding another layer of protection for species at risk such as
walrus and polar bears.198 Conservation of sensitive wetland habitats, and world heritage sites,
occurs through the Ramsar and World Heritage Conventions, though both these treaties could
impose even stronger obligations on contracting parties and both could be more widely used in the
196
Personal communication, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.
197
1996 Report of the Auditor General of Canada, Chapter 22 – Main Points – Federal
Contaminated Sites – Management Information on Environmental Costs and Liabilities; 1999
Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, (Government
of Canada: Ottawa), available on line at http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca.
198
Both these species have been listed in Appendices to CITES.
56
Arctic. And some individual species are well served by legal regimes designed for them.
Commentators cite the Polar Bear Agreement as an example of a successful simple wildlife treaty,
though recent analysis shows that some of the bears’ critical habitat is unprotected.199 Some herds
of caribou are legally protected, such as the Porcupine Caribou Herd, through a bilateral United
States-Canada agreement,200 while the fate of others, such as the Bathurst Caribou Herd is
uncertain due to unknown impacts of the Ekati diamond mine on the herd’s migratory route and
still others, such as Peary Caribou, are in serious decline.201
Unwillingness to address critical issues for Arctic biodiversity, such as the consumptive use
of wild species, including trade in those species, means the Arctic Council has missed an
opportunity to make a valuable contribution. The task of making progress in these key areas has
been left to NGOs such as the World Wildlife Fund, which has prepared Guidelines for the
Consumptive Use of Arctic Species.202 Arctic biodiversity protection is one area where a regional
legally binding agreement would be useful. Reconciling ecological sustainability and the
consumptive use of species is a critical Arctic issue, and there are many other regional models to
learn from around the world.
3. Regional Arctic environmental protection agreement

Various arguments have been made to consolidate the Arctic legal regime into one or more region
wide agreements.
The initial Arctic Council proposal was accompanied by a draft framework treaty. The draft
included “to promote the use of the Arctic Region for peaceful purposes” in the list of the purposes
of the Council, mirroring the Antarctic treaty wording.203
Opinion is split on the need for a region wide treaty, though many conservation organizations,
scientists, government representatives and academic experts favour a new Agreement. An example
of an opinion opposing a new agreement is that continuing efforts to solve Arctic problems on a
piecemeal basis would be crippled by a “grand but generally unrealistic vision of a comprehensive,
region-wide governance system for the circumpolar world.”204 The other viewpoint is expressed
by an expert who favours the adoption of an even stronger legal regime, encompassing not only the
environment, but the entire sustainable development agenda, through adoption of an Arctic Treaty
on Sustainable Development.205
199
Arctic – A Preliminary Analysis, 1996..
200
Canada-US Agreement on the Porcupine Herd, 1987. This Agreement may be in jeopardy due
to increased calls to start oil and gas drilling on the US portion of habitat.
201
Canadian Wildlife Service, Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada and
Northwest Territories government: http://www.nwtwildlife.rwed.gov.nt.ca/Publications/
speciesatriskweb/pearycaribou.htm.
202
WWF Arctic Programme: Wild Species Use, Guidelines for Consumptive Use of Arctic
Species, at http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfap/CCU/.
203
Donat Pharand, “Draft Arctic Treaty: An Arctic Region Council,” reprinted in (1991) Northern
Perspectives, vol. 19:2.
204
Oran Young, Young, Oran R. The Structure of Arctic Cooperation: Solving Problems/Seizing
Opportunities **A paper prepared at the request of Finland in preparation for the fourth
conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, Rovaniemi, 27-29 August 2000, and the
Finnish chairmanship of the Arctic Council during the period 2000-2002, 15.
205
Sanjay Chaturvedi, The Polar Regions, 1996.
57
The form of an Arctic regional agreement has also been vigorously debated. A regional Arctic
environmental protection agreement could not be similar to the Madrid Protocol in the Antarctic
because the intent is not to make Arctic a nature reserve but to allow for sustainable use and
development. However, a regional agreement similar to the Biodiversity Convention with its 3
themes: conservation, sustainable use and sharing of benefits, may be an appropriate model.
Proposals have been made to use:
• a single comprehensive environmental agreement addressing both land and vessel based
pollution, contingency planning and biodiversity protection;
• a convention on Arctic land based sources of pollution;
• a broader sustainable development and environmental protection convention covering

both marine and terrestrial areas;206
• a Protocol to other Conventions, i.e. an Arctic Protocol under the Biodiversity Convention;
and
• an Arctic Ocean Regional Sea regime under the UNEP Regional Seas Programme. UNEP
has taken preliminary steps to establish a Regional Action Plan for Protecting the Arctic
Marine Environment with the eight Arctic states. An Action Plan may be more feasible
than a full fledged agreement, and could stimulate activities by the Arctic states to more
efficiently protect the environment.
This list of options is not exhaustive, and further work to identify the full range of legal options
and the pros and cons of each option would be required to evaluate which course to pursue.
The main arguments in favour of and against a treaty are set out below. The arguments
favouring a new legally binding treaty are convincing, considering the value of the Arctic, the
serious nature of the environmental threats, and the lack of a comprehensive framework in which
to address these threats.
3.1 Advantages of an Arctic environmental treaty

The main advantage of a treaty is the potential for increasing states’ obligations to protect the
environment through the elaboration of enforceable targets, timetables, and scheduled dues. A
binding legal agreement could attract more serious attention from states. There is some concern
that the Arctic states are paying less high-level attention to the work of the Arctic Council. At the
most recent biennial Council meeting, only three Ministers represented their countries.207 A
binding treaty could also signal a higher level of political commitment towards this region.
A treaty incorporating assessed dues could overcome the problem of serious and chronic
underfunding for the Council, and lend stability to the Council’s work.
A treaty would raise the political profile of Arctic issues, and encourage the Arctic states to
take the environment more seriously. A dedicated secretariat with personnel, offices, and a budget
could advance the Arctic environmental protection agenda more readily than the current voluntary,
rotating chairs of Arctic Council.
206
David VanderZwaag, “Land based marine pollution and the Arctic” in Davor Vidas, ed.,
207
“Ministerial” with Only Three Ministers,” WWF Arctic Bulletin, vol. 4, p. 4. (2000).
58
Provisions for financial and technological transfers are now missing from the Council’s
agenda. Adoption of this type of provision, common in modern environmental treaties, may induce
compliance by those states that require assistance for clean up.
There is a need to consolidate the current huge range of dense issue specific arrangements, and
add missing elements such as:
• dispute settlement options,
• benefit sharing,
• incorporation of the precautionary principle and other significant legal principles, and
• address conflicts and overlaps by including the principle of subsidiarity.
Legal experts debate whether the use of a binding treaty is necessary to achieve these
advantages. All these goals could also potentially be achieved under the current soft law legal
regime.
Much of the substance of a framework agreement is already in place. It would be relatively

easily to formalize an Arctic Council agreement, enshrine the mandates of the five WGs, add
innovative features designed to address the particular needs of the Arctic, and give the whole
arrangement a sustainable development focus. The change from the AEPS to Arctic Council
happened in a relatively short time frame. As the pace of change accelerates in the Arctic,
converting the Arctic Council agreement into a more comprehensive treaty may be warranted. The
precautionary principle may be incorporated into a new treaty to ensure that one of the last of earth’s
great wilderness areas remains intact.
3.2 Disadvantages of an Arctic environmental protection

treaty
The main argument against a new treaty is that the current soft law arrangement is relatively new
and it is too early to evaluate whether it needs to be supplemented by an enforceable treaty.
Arctic states may be unlikely to want to invest time and energy into a treaty at this stage. The
WGs are carrying out detailed plans of action implemented nationally (e.g. AMAP and national
contaminant programs). Some argue that a treaty would not add much, as the action plans that
would be set in place under a treaty are already established. There is also the risk of “treaty
congestion” and “treaty fatigue” due to the rapidly expanding number of global environmental and
other treaties.
Soft law can be useful in an area without a long history of international cooperation, like the
Arctic. Soft law requires neither formal procedures of ratification, nor the passage of domestic
implementing legislation. Both these processes can take time, and may be difficult to achieve due
to political constraints. Treaty making may involve serious constitutional or legislative barriers.
Negotiating soft law instruments will usually be quicker, and provisions in these agreements take
effect immediately.208
Treaties may produce weaker commitments than a soft law regime. Because agreements are
not legally binding, states may be more willing to include substantive commitments, and reach
208
Alexandre Kiss, “Commentary and Conclusions” in Dinah Shelton, ed. Commitment and
Compliance, 2000, 239.
59
agreement quicker in a soft law regime. Governments may also be more willing to take innovative
approaches when the end result will not be legally binding. States are more likely to include
loopholes in legally binding agreements to limit their exposure to new or expanded commit-
ments.209 Other arguments against development of a treaty at this time include:
• The time and expense of formal treaty negotiations could act as a barrier to continuation
of soft law development;
• A formal new organization, such as a treaty secretariat, could be expensive to operate;
• A comprehensive regime can be difficult to obtain support for, and consequently difficult
to implement. The best example of this phenomenon is LOSC, which took eleven years
to from negotiation to coming into force, and is still not implemented worldwide; and
• Also, many international treaties are already taking the special needs of the Arctic into
account such as the POPs treaty. Pursuing Arctic specific goals in existing global regimes
may be faster, less expensive, and more effective for the environment.
3.3 Potential Subjects for a new Agreement

There are a number of serious environmental issues discussed in this report for which there are no
existing legal rules. A new agreement should include principles, substantive legal obligations, and
innovative features.
Principles
A regional agreement could give legal force to the sustainable development principles
articulated in the Sustainable Development Framework to guide the work of the Council and all its
associated bodies. These principles could draw on work done by many others, such as from
indigenous organizations.210
The principles could also be drawn from well-established principles of international environ-
mental law, such as:
• the precautionary principle,
• the principle of intergenerational equity,
• the polluter pays principle, and
• the obligation not to cause environmental harm.
The precautionary principle, in particular, has not yet been incorporated into the Arctic legal
regime. Instead, Ministers have chosen to wait and act only if the voluntary actions undertaken by
the various Working Groups do not work, the opposite of the precautionary approach, e.g. a
209
Young, Oran R. The Structure of Arctic Cooperation: Solving Problems/Seizing Opportuni-
chairmanship of the Arctic Council during the period 2000-2002, 18.
210
Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Towards an Inuit Regional Conservation Strategy, 1996;
Agenda 21 from an Inuit Perspective.
60
statement by the Inuvik Ministerial Conference of March 1996 “…should implementation of
various proposed actions not occur, or should they prove inadequate to address emerging problems,
then reconsideration of further legally binding instruments should be pursued.” 211
Additional innovative legal principles for the Arctic region could include:
• subsistence preference, which gives subsistence users preference for living resources
when there are not enough stocks to satisfy the demands of commercial, recreational and
subsistence users; and
• co-management, which recognizes the right of user groups and indigenous communities
to participate in decision-making regarding living resources.212
Each of these principles is relevant to Arctic environmental protection, and none of these
principles is present in the current regime. A new regional agreement could ensure that innovative
arrangements working well in one or more Arctic states could be adopted for the entire region.
Substantive Obligations
In addition to incorporating key principles, the topics that could be covered by an Arctic
sustainability agreement include building on the successes of the ATS, and the adoption of rules
similar to those found in the Annexes to the Madrid Protocol:
1. Annex I, Environmental Impact Assessment; The voluntary rules used in the Arctic could
be converted to a legally binding agreement.
2. Annex II, Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora; The Arctic sorely needs a
comprehensive plan and rules to conserve its unique and globally valued biological
diversity.
3. Annex III, Waste Disposal and Waste Management; Building on these stringent rules, new
Arctic rules could be developed to promote clean technologies and pollution prevention
recognizing the fragility of the Arctic environment.
4. Annex IV, Prevention of Marine Pollution; This Annex contains standards similar to those
in the MARPOL Convention, and is specifically linked to MARPOL.
5. In addition, Annex V, Area Protection and Management, to consolidate the different

protected area designations used by the Arctic states and to design common rules for access
and management.
Other potential topics where substantive obligations would be useful include:
• Sustainable use and consumptive use of Arctic species, such as seals, whales, polar bears
and walrus.
• Conversion of the voluntary rules for offshore oil and gas development, environmental
impact assessment and polar navigation into binding requirements.
211
See discussion in Davor Vidas, “The polar marine environment in regional cooperation” in
Davor Vidas, ed., Protecting the Polar Marine Environment (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press), 2000, 89-92.
212
Testimony of Oran Young to SCFAIT, Canada and the Circumpolar World, chap. 5, p.2.
61
• Harmonization of environmental standards in the Arctic region through regional rules to

regulate land-based pollution; vessel-source pollution; mining and the protection of
biological diversity.213
• Tourism is a subject that could be addressed by a regional agreement. More than one
million tourists visit the Arctic annually.214 Wilderness travel, ecotourism, and cruise
ships, among other forms of tourism are growth industries and bring people to previously
untouched wilderness areas. Regulation of this industry is limited. Voluntary guidelines
have predominated to date with little discernible impact. In the Antarctic, tourism
activities are subject to the strict planning controls that apply to all activities having a more
than minor or transitory impact. Stringent waste disposal standards also apply in the
Antarctic to tourism and other operations. An Arctic accord could include provisions to
control the environmental impact of tourism, incorporating WWF’s guidelines for
sustainable tourism in the Arctic.215
4. Innovative Features for a new Treaty or Regional

Agreement
The Arctic has become a hotbed of innovative approaches to governance. A new agreement or
treaty should incorporate the innovations that have been adopted to date; and should seek to use
new innovate approaches
The Arctic Council is one of the first regional governance bodies devoted to environmental
protection and sustainable development.216
Unlike the Antarctic, whose legal regime developed to stall territorial claims, halt militarization
and preserve a pristine environment for scientific research, the Arctic’s nascent structure includes
the development needs of people and is not an attempt to replicate the “nature reserve” at the South
Pole. With the addition of the Working Group on Sustainable Development, the Council’s focus
has shifted to encompass sustainable development.
213
Oran Young, “Emerging Priorities for Sustainable Development in the Circumpolar North”
Background paper for Circumpolar Conference on Sustainable Development in the Arctic,
1998, available online at http: www.dartmouth.edu/~arctic/articles/whitehorse.html.
214
GEO-2000, Global Environment Outlook, (UNEP: Nairobi), 2000.
215
WWF, Linking Tourism and Conservation in the Arctic, 1997, online at http://www.ngo.grida.no/
wwfap/publications/.
216
Another example is the 1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) between
Canada and the United States. The original Agreement specified objectives to reduce the
discharge of substances toxic to human, animal or aquatic life. Subsequent amendments
incorporated the ecosystem approach, and committed the two governments to the virtual
elimination of persistent toxic substances. The Agreement now sets goals for non-point
contaminant sources, contaminated sediment, airborne toxic substances, and contaminated
groundwater. The International Joint Commission (IJC) monitors and evaluates the progress
of this Agreement. Though the Agreement has worked to reduce pollution in some areas, levels
of persistent toxic substances remain unacceptably high; exotic species continue to have severe
impacts on indigenous species and expanding populations and changes in land use due to
urbanization and other development processes continue to impact sensitive tributary and
nearshore habitats. From the website of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement at http://
www.on.ec.gc.ca/glwqa/intro.html.
62
4.1 Indigenous Participation
Representatives of indigenous organizations have formal representation on the Arctic Council as
Permanent Participants, akin to state status. This recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples
to participate in regional governance has few parallels in international society.217 It may be a crack
in the iceberg of interstate relations, recognizing the legitimate role of non-state actors and civil
society representatives in decision-making structures. A regional agreement could formalize this
participation.
A regional agreement could build on the special role afforded to indigenous groups as
Permanent Participants in Arctic Council, could recognize co-management and TEK, and provide
a platform for institutionalizing and standardizing impact and benefit sharing agreements.
Recognition that biological diversity is highest in areas of cultural/linguistic diversity is another
environmental reason for enshrining special status for indigenous peoples in an Arctic regional
agreement.218 The right of traditional peoples to development options that are culturally
determined and not imposed from outside, and that incorporate customary, sustainable resource use
could be a key component of a regional agreement.
4.2 Co-management
Co-management is well developed in the Arctic region, in part due to indigenous land, resource and
participation rights. Co-management is a term used to describe shared decision-making in the
planning and administration of natural resources. Many co-management resource management
structures in the Arctic consist of a combination of government and indigenous representatives.
Comprehensive land claims settlement agreements in Canada have led to many co-management
arrangements and new joint decision making bodies. Examples such as the Mackenzie Valley
Resource Management Act in Canada, a federal law which provides direct indigenous participation
in resource management, planning, regulatory approvals and review and monitoring provide a
good base for examining how co-management works in practice.219 Other examples are found in
the US where organizations such as the Alaskan Eskimo Whaling Commission, Alaska Eskimo
Walrus Commission and Association of Native Village Council Presidents jointly develop
regulations for wildlife management.
Although devolution of regulatory powers through a co-management regime will remain a

subject for domestic law, a regional agreement could encourage more widespread use of this legal
tool.
4.3 Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)

An expanded role for TEK is also a possible topic for inclusion in a regional environmental
agreement. Different Arctic states already incorporate this type of knowledge in their environmen-
tal assessment and monitoring regimes, and the Arctic EIA Guidelines also refer to the desirability
217
The Arctic Council agreement is careful to note that the use of the word “peoples” does not
connote any claim for self-determination.
218
WWF, Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion Conservation: An
Integrated Approach to Conserving the World’s Biological and Cultural Diversity, 2000,
online at www.panda.org.
219
See discussion in Alex Ker, The Legal Regulatory and Policy Framework for Non-renewable
Resource Development in the Northwest Territories, (Ottawa: National Round Table on the
Environment and the Economy), 2000.
63
of including this type of knowledge. Numerous reports, workshops and seminars have explored
the topic.220 A comparison of how well the Arctic states are integrating TEK into their
environmental procedures and whether a standardized approach would be helpful is another
potential area for exploration in a regional agreement.
One area known particularly for its mining potential is the West Kitikmeot/Slave area of the
Northwest Territories. The area is home to a population which includes Inuit, Dene and Metis
aboriginal peoples, who depend upon the natural resources of the area. There is insufficient
information and data on the area in terms of development potential, environmental quality, wildlife
populations, and critical habitats. Consequently possible cumulative effects of development in the
area are poorly understood. The West Kitikmeot/Slave Study was initiated to provide an
information base to support sound resource management decisions and to examine the short-term
and long-term effects of development.
A unique feature of the West Kitikmeot/Slave Study Society is that it is a partnership of

aboriginal and environmental organizations, government and industry. These partners joined
together as a society in late 1995 to make sure the effects of development on the environment,
wildlife and people of the West Kitikmeot/Slave Study (WKSS) area are minimal and that northern
people get a share of the benefits that may come from development. Traditional knowledge and
scientific knowledge are placed on equal footing, as providing keys to sustainable development.
Grizzly bear, water quality and community health final reports have been posted to the WKSS
Internet website as the study continues through its final year.
Perhaps the most innovative of the Study components is the Traditional Ecological Knowl-
edge Research in the Kache Kue study region. This project is focusing on learning about the
ecology of the study region from the traditional knowledge of Chipewyan elders. Key species,
habitat, and the effects of development are the main areas of focus, with the goal that indicators of
ecosystem health can be developed. Researchers work with the elders to understand the meaning
of their stories, and document them in written form with maps. Information collected includes
traditional land use, significant cultural/spiritual sites and Chipewyan terminology.221
4.4 Impact Benefit Agreements

The use of impact and benefit agreements is another innovative feature in some Arctic states.
Standardization of this requirement could go a long way to achieving sustainable development in
the Arctic region. Allowing some resource development to proceed in areas that are less
ecologically sensitive than others, with the full involvement of affected residents of the region and
complete legally enforcable agreements for mitigating harmful impacts and sharing benefits would
be a step beyond traditional environmental impact assessment towards a sustainable future.
Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) have become a powerful tool for securing local
economic benefits in parts of the Arctic. Negotiated directly between a developer or project
proponent and an indigenous group or local association, these agreements may cover cash
payments, revenue sharing, training obligations, local employment targets, cross-cultural training,
protection of cultural values, social and cultural impacts monitoring and mitigation, and environ-
mental provisions, such as reclamation procedures, research obligations, incorporation of tradi-
220
See the compendium of examples included in Burgess, Philip Traditional Knowledge, A
Report Prepared for the Indigenous peoples’ Secretariat, 1999, available online at http://
www.arcticpeoples.org/knowl.htm.
221
WKSS reports are available on the WKSS website (www.wkss.nt.ca).
64
tional ecological knowledge, and environmental impacts monitoring and obligations. IBAs may
be voluntary, or legally required by domestic statutes,222 acquisition of tenures or operating
licences or permits,223 or in recognition of indigenous land claim rights.224
Though common in some Arctic countries, IBAs are not universally used. The sparse research
data indicates indespread use in Canada, some use in Russia, and little, if any, use of this legal tool
in the European Arctic regions. IBAs are gaining more prominence and important issues related
to their negotiation have surfaced. Confidentiality and non-disclosure requirements in IBAs,
which pit aboriginal communities against one another and forestall open communication about
common terms, are a concern. Other concerns include the uncertain relationship of IBAs to public
regulatory processes, enforcement and the need for a legal or constitutional basis to ensure that
IBAs are part of the normal regulation of larger projects.225
The impacts of resource development on Arctic communities and particularly on indigenous

peoples have been largely negative. Cultural breakdown, environmental damage, and on-going
health problems are common legacies across the North. IBAs represent a potential for change,
especially if a requirement to negotiate these agreements is institutionalized, to prevent the serious
deficiencies resulting from the current piecemeal project-by-project, community-by-community
approach. Many questions surrounding IBAs need resolution, such as whether bilateral agree-
ments between local people and industry produce fair arrangements that ensure appropriate
benefits for local people; the role of government; and the potential need for a legislated framework
to ensure fairness, consistency and clarity.226
This issue also deserves further attention from a global and a regional Arctic perspective.
Should resource companies be required to enter into IBAs with local communities wherever they
operate? What special requirements should operate in indigenous communities? Is there a need
for guidelines, or a legally binding agreement to institutionalize the already commonly used benefit
sharing arrangements that some multinationals now voluntarily adopt? What role can international
law play in this regard?
222
In Canada, oil and gas legislation applicable in the North requires the negotiation of “benefits
plans,” e.g. Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, R.S. 1985, c. O-7, s. 5.2, but mining
legislation does not contain similar requirements.
223
For the BHP Ekati diamond mine in Canada’s Northwest Territories, completion of IBAs
became a condition of obtaining final regulatory approvals from the federal government. In
particular, a water licence was held up until IBAs were negotiated in a short conditional time
period imposed by the regulators: Alex Kerr, Impact and Benefits Agreements as Instruments
for Aboriginal Participation in Non-Renewable Resource Development, (Ottawa: NRTEE),
2000, 18.
224
For example, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement requires that “participation” agreements be
negotiated where the use of the surface is more than casual or temporary, Janet Keeping, “The
Legal and Constitutional Basis for Benefits Agreements: A Summary,” vol. 25.4, Northern
Perspectives, Fall-Winter 1999-2000. In Alaska, USA, land claim settlements have also
required significant financial transfers to indigenous groups, though those have been payments
from the federal government, rather than transfers from corporations.
225
Kevin O’Reilly, “Impacts and Benefit Agreements: Tools for Sustainable Development?,”
vol. 25.4, Northern Perspectives, Fall-Winter 1999-2000.
226
Janet Keeping, “The Legal and Constitutional Basis for Benefits Agreements: A Summary,”
vol. 25.4, Northern Perspectives, Fall-Winter 1999-2000.
65
4.5 Indigenous Knowledge and Intellectual property Rights

One of the three themes of the Convention on Biological Diversity is access and benefit sharing.
The Secretariat of the Convention has convened experts’ meetings on this topic to explore how
access and benefit sharing can be used to conserve biological diversity.227
A large part of the focus of these meetings has been on the use of intellectual property rights
as a vehicle for encouraging biodiversity conservation. Intellectual property rights can be one way
that the economic sharing of benefits arising from biodiversity conservation can occur. Article 8(j)
of the Biodiversity Convention is the link to indigenous peoples on this issue. It states that: Each
Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate, (j) Subject to its national legislation,
respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local
communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of
biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the
holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the
benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices.
Case studies relating to intellectual property rights, indigenous peoples and the protection of
biodiversity in Canada have been compiled, with several examples form the Arctic: the Igloolik
floe-edge boat and arctic char fish farming.228 More work on this topic may be appropriate for an
Arctic regional environmental protection agreement.
5. Conclusion
There are many potential topics for a regional Arctic agreement to protect the environment and
promote sustainability. The Antarctic has a well-developed regime and forty years of experience
to draw upon when designing an invigorated Arctic regime. Innovative features to meet the unique
needs of Arctic residents are also proliferating, and should be incorporated into a strengthened legal
regime. A treaty could play a valuable role in promoting Arctic sustainability. Whether or not a
legally binding treaty is negotiated soon, the Arctic Council should move to promote and strengthen
the innovative features that are already part of the Arctic regime, and continue to work to preserve
the unique features of the Arctic region.
227
Report of the Panel of Experts on Access and Benefit-sharing on the work of its first meeting
(UNEP/CBD/COP/5/8) 1999, available online at http://www.biodiv.org/benefitsharing/html/
abs-pe-2-home.html.
228
Howard Mann, Indigenous Peoples and the Use of Intellectual Property Rights in Canada:
Case Studies, 1997, prepared for Industry Canada and the Canadian Working Group on Art.
8(j) of the Biodiversity Convention.
66
Bibliography
Arctic Council, reports of the Council and all Working Groups, online at www.arctic-council.org.
Arctic Council. Report of Senior Arctic Officials to Arctic Council Ministers, Barrow, Alaska, Oct.
2000.
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), 1997, Arctic Pollution Issues: A State of
the Arctic Environment Report, Oslo: AMAP.
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) Report on Issues of Concern: Updated
Information on Human Health, Persistent Organic Pollutants, Radioactivity, and Mercury in
the Arctic, Sept. 2000.
Bloom, Evan T. Current Development: Establishment of the Arctic Council, 1999, 93 A.J.I.L. 712.
Brigham, Lawson. “The emerging International Polar Navigation Code” in Davor Vidas, ed.,
Burgess, Philip. Traditional Knowledge, 1999, available online at http://www.arcticpeoples.org/
knowl.htm.
CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No. 5. Gaps in Habitat Protection in the Circumpolar Arctic
– A Preliminary Analysis, 1996.
Canada, Government of Canada. Government of Canada Response to the Report of the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade “Canada and the Circumpolar World:
Meeting the Challenges of Cooperation into the Twenty-first Century,” 1999.
Canada, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The Northern Dimension of
Canada’s Foreign Policy, available online at http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/arctic/menu-
e.htm.
Canada, House of Commons. Canada and the Circumpolar World: Meeting the Challenges of
Cooperation into the Twenty-First Century – Report of the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Bill Graham, Chair, April 1997.
Clarke, R. MCV. “An Overview of Canada’s Arctic Marine Fisheries and Their Management with
Emphasis on the Northwest Territories,” in Parsons and Lear, eds., Perspectives on Canadian
Marine Fisheries Management, Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 226,
1993.
Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat. Report of the Panel of Experts on Access and
Benefit-sharing on the work of its first meeting (UNEP/CBD/COP/5/8) 1999, available online
at http://www.biodiv.org/benefitsharing/html/abs-pe-2-home.html.
Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat. UNEP/CBD/EP-ABS/2/2, Assessment of User
and Provider Experience, Identification of Approaches to Involvement of Stakeholders, and
Complementary Options, Note by the Executive Secretary.
FAO. The State of the World’s Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2000.
Fenge, Terry. 1998 “POPs in the Arctic: Turning Science into Policy,” Northern Perspectives, 25
(Winter): 21-27.
Fenge, Terry. 1996 “Towards Sustainable Development in the Circumpolar North,” Canadian
Arctic Resources Committee, Ottawa.
Fenge, Terry. “Indigenous Peoples and Global POPs” in Northern Perspectives, Fall 2000.
French, Duncan. “Sustainable Development and the 1991 Madrid Protocol to the 1959 Antarctic
Treaty: The Primacy of Protection in a Particularly Sensitive Environment, (1999), vol. 2:3
JIWLP.
67
Furman, Eeva and Mikael Hildén. Environmental Impact Assessment – A Tool for Sustainable
Development in the Arctic, Finnish Environment Institute Third International Conference of
Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region Salekhard, April 22-24, 1998.
Golovnev, Andrei and Osherenko, Gail Siberian Survival – The Nenets and Their Story (Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press) 1999.
Heap, John Editor. Handbook Of The Antarctic Treaty System, 8th Edition, 1994.
Hunter, Salzman and Zaelke. International Environmental Law and Policy (New York: Founda-
tion Press), 1076.
Keeping, Janet. “The Legal and Constitutional Basis for Benefits Agreements: A Summary,” vol.
25.4, Northern Perspectives, Fall-Winter 1999-2000.
Ker, Alex. The Legal Regulatory and Policy Framework for Non-renewable Resource Develop-
ment in the Northwest Territories, (Ottawa: National Round Table on the Environment and
the Economy), 2000.
Kerr, Alex. Impact and Benefits Agreements as Instruments for Aboriginal Participation in Non-
Renewable Resource Development, (Ottawa: NRTEE), 2000, 18.
Kimball, Lee. “The Antarctic Treaty System” in John R. Twiss and Randall Reeves, eds.,
Press), 1999.
Lyster, Simon. 1985 International Wildlife Law, Cambridge: Grotius Publications.
Mann, Howard Indigenous Peoples and the Use of Intellectual Property Rights in Canada: Case
Studies, 1997, prepared for Industry Canada and the Canadian Working Group on Art. 8(j) of
the Biodiversity Convention.
McCormick, Kevin. “Involving Local Authorities and Indigenous Peoples in Marine Manage-
ment,” Background Paper, CAFF, IUCN, PAME Circumpolar Marine Workshop, 1999, 15.
McIver, Jennifer. “Environmental Protection, Indigenous Rights and the Arctic Council: Rock,
Paper, Scissors on the Ice?,” (1997) vol. 10, Georgetown International Environmental Law
Review, 147, 157.
O’Reilly, Kevin. “Impacts and Benefit Agreements: Tools for Sustainable Development?,” vol.
25.4, Northern Perspectives, Fall-Winter 1999-2000.
Pharand, Donat. “Draft Arctic Treaty: An Arctic Region Council,” reprinted in (1991) Northern
Perspectives, vol. 19:2.
Robinson, Deborah. “International Dimensions of Global Change: Arctic Applications,” unpub-
lished, 1997, available on the Arctic Circle website at www.arcticcircle.uconn.edu.
Rothwell, Donald R. 1996 The Polar Regions and the Development of International Law,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Russell, Bruce A. The Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy & the New Arctic Council, online
at the Arctic Circle website maintained by the University of Connecticut: http://
arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ArcticCircle/NatResources/Policy/uspolicy1.html.
Tennberg, Monica. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ INVOLVEMENT IN THE ARCTIC COUNCIL
Northern Notes, IV: 21-32 (December 1996)] online at http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/
ArcticCircle/NatResources/Policy/tennberg.html.
UNEP. GEO-2000 Global Environment Outlook, (UNEP: Nairobi), 2000.
VanderZwaag, David. “International Commons – The Arctic” in The Year in Review, 1998,
9YbIEL 266-273.
VanderZwaag, David. “ International Commons – The Arctic” in The Year in Review, 1999,
10YbIEL 303-307.
68
Vidas, Davor ed. Protecting the Polar Marine Environment, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press), 2000.
Vogler, John The Global Commons: Environmental and Technological Governance, 2nd ed.
(England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2000),
Whiteman, Gail and Katy Mamen. “Community Consultation in Mining: A tool for community
empowerment or for public relations?” Cultural Survival Quarterly, 2000.
WWF Arctic Bulletin.
WWF Arctic Programme. Linking Tourism and Conservation in the Arctic, 1997, online at http:/
/www.ngo.grida.no/wwfap/publications/.
WWF Arctic Programme. Wild Species Use, Guidelines for Consumptive Use of Arctic Species,
at http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfap/CCU/.
WWF. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion Conservation: An
Integrated Approach to Conserving the World’s Biological and Cultural Diversity, 2000,
online at www.panda.org.
WWF and UNEP. CAFF and Conservation in the Arctic, Summary of a Workshop on Arctic
Biological Diversity Conservation: Perspectives and Structures, 1997, available online at
http://ngo.grida.no./wwfap/CAFFreport.
Young, Oran R. Creating Regimes: Arctic Accords and International Governance, Ithaca, NY,
USA: Cornell University Press, 1998.
Young, Oran R. “Emerging Priorities for Sustainable Development in the Circumpolar North,”
background paper for Circumpolar Conference on Sustainable Development in the Arctic,
1998, available online at http: www.dartmouth.edu/~arctic/articles/whitehorse.html.
Young, Oran R. The Structure of Arctic Cooperation: Solving Problems/Seizing Opportunities,
A paper prepared at the request of Finland in preparation for the fourth conference of
Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, Rovaniemi, 27-29, August 2000, and the Finnish
69
70
IUCN – The World Conservation Union
Founded in 1948, The World Conservation Union brings
together States, government agencies and a diverse range of non-
governmental organizations in a unique world partnership: over
980 members in all, spread across some 141 countries.
As a Union, IUCN seeks to influence, encourage and assist
societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and
diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources
is equitable and ecologically sustainable.
The World Conservation Union builds on the strengths of its
members, networks and partners to enhance their capacity and to
support global alliances to safeguard natural resources at local,
regional and global levels.
IUCN Environmental Law Centre

Godesberger Allee 108-112
D-53175 Bonn, Germany
Tel.: ++ 49 228 2692231
Fax: ++ 49 228 2692250
E-mail: [email protected]
www.iucn.org/themes/law
IUCN Publications Services Unit

219c Huntingdon Road
Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK
Tel.: ++ 44 1223 277894
Fax: ++ 44 1223 277175
E-mail: [email protected]
www.iucn.org/bookstore
ICEL

Eplp 044

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eplp 044

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eplp 044

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IUCN

Arctic Legal Regime for

IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 44

International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL)

The International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL) was formed in 1969 in

West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation

West Coast Environmental Law

IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 44

IUCN - The World Conservation Union

Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK in collaboration with

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised

Cover design by: IUCN Environmental Law Centre

Layout by: Barbara Weiner, Desktop Publications Co-ordinator

Printed by: Daemisch Mohr, Siegburg, Germany

Available from: IUCN Publications Services Unit

A catalogue of IUCN publications is also available

I. THE ARCTIC LEGAL REGIME – MOVING FROM ENVIRONMENTAL

II. THE CURRENT ARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL REGIME 2

III. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND THE ARCTIC – APPLICABLE TREATIES

IV. THE ANTARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL REGIME 40

V. COMPARISON OF POLAR ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL REGIMES 48

VI. NEED FOR REGIONAL ARCTIC AGREEMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL

Current Legal Regime

The Arctic and Antarctic Legal Regimes

Adequacy of Current Arctic Environmental Legal Regime

Need for a New Arctic Environmental Agreement

1. Unlike Antarctica, the Arctic is not a Nature Reserve

2. Adequacy of Current Environmental Legal Regime

II. The Current Arctic Environmental Legal Regime

1.1 Environmental Issues in the Arctic

A key environmental problem is warming ocean temperatures, evidence of climate change

• overfishing in the North Pacific, North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans,

• expansion of the nuclear industry in the Arctic, demonstrated by proposals to construct

2. The Regional Legal Regime

2.1 Overview of Regime

2.2 Growth in Arctic Cooperation Initiatives

The International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) – This Committee is a non-govern-

The North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) – The governments of

The Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region (SCPAR) – This

3. Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS)21

The objectives of the AEPS were:

i. to protect the Arctic ecosystems, including humans,

iv. to review regularly the state of the Arctic environment, and

v. to identify, reduce, and as a final goal, eliminate pollution.

3.1 Evaluation of Effectiveness of AEPS

d) disseminate information, encourage education and promote interest in Arctic-related

4.1 Role of Indigenous People

• the Inuit Circumpolar Conference,

• the Saami Council,

• the Aleutian International Association,

• the Gwich’in Council International and

• the Arctic Athabaskan Council.

Use of Indigenous Knowledge – The use of indigenous knowledge or traditional ecological

Indigenous knowledge was incorporated in the SOAER in a chapter on indigenous ways of

4.2 Procedure of Council

4.3 Arctic Council Working Groups

• Sustainable Development Program (SDWG)

• Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP)

• Emergency, Prevention, Preparedness and Response Program (EPPRP)