Arctic Governance Amid Fragile Geopolitics and Climate Change

The Arctic is warming more than twice as fast as the rest of the world. This accelerated warming is modifying its environment and the geopolitical dynamics in the region. A melting Arctic is opening newer trade routes, sparking competition over resources and security. With governance struggling to keep pace, the region faces rising risks to ecosystem and local communities, with impacts also extending to global stability.

—

2024 was the first officially recorded calendar year to breach the Paris Agreement warming threshold, with global average surface temperatures reaching 1.55C above pre-industrial levels. While warming effects are universal, the Arctic stands out as a global warming hotspot, experiencing a much more rapid and vigorous onset of warming. This phenomenon, known as “Arctic amplification”, is causing the region to warm at over twice the global average, driven by feedback loops involving sea ice and snow cover. On March 22, Arctic sea ice reached its smallest-ever winter peak, highlighting the severity of these changes. 

This accelerated warming is triggering profound environmental shifts, including sea ice loss, glacial retreat, and altered precipitation patterns. The marine environment is deeply affected by changes in light penetration, ocean stratification, acidification, and shifting salinity gradients. Biologically, the region is undergoing a phenomenon known as “borealization”, with temperate species migrating northwards, new pathogens emerging, and food web structures shifting.

Beyond the environmental crisis, the melting Arctic has become a façade for global competition and geopolitics. Disappearing ice caps and changing borders are creating frictions over claiming ocean and land territory beyond national jurisdictions over resource extraction, militarization, and commercial trade.

Historically, the eight Arctic nations – Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the US – and Indigenous peoples engaged in peaceful cooperation. However, rising tensions, particularly between Russia and the Global West amidst Ukraine’s invasion, coupled with growing interest from emerging nations like China and India, have made geopolitical collaboration increasingly sensitive. 

Understanding emerging challenges requires background on the current governance structure. Unlike the Antarctic, the Arctic lacks a single guiding treaty. 

Although the European Parliament proposed an Arctic Treaty in 2008, the five Arctic states reaffirmed their commitment to cooperation under the UN Convention of the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) – an international treaty that establishes the legal framework for all marine and maritime activities – rejecting the need for a new legal framework.

This preeminent channel for Arctic governance is currently facing an uncertain future. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022 led seven other Arctic States to pause their participation in all Arctic Council work, disrupting 128 crucial scientific and cooperative projects. Moreover, since the council was founded on economic and environmental sustainability, it explicitly excludes military issues from its ambit. This exclusion is a major elephant in the room, as increased military activity, driven by geopolitical tensions, negatively affects fisheries, disrupts marine  habitats, introduces contaminants, and increases the risk of accidents and oil spills. 

The inability to address these pressing ecological, economic, and geopolitical stressors in a unified manner threatens the region’s stability. 

Established by the International Maritime Organization, the Polar Code sets mandatory rules for international shipping in Arctic waters, aiming to enhance safety and mitigate environmental impacts. However, it suffers from significant vagueness due to its goal-oriented approach, leading to inconsistent implementation of safety standards. 

This discretion is concerning because polar shipping demands specialized knowledge and skills possessed by a limited number of professionals, raising the risk of inconsistent or inadequate implementation. More importantly, its environmental protection measures are not comprehensive enough for decarbonization concerns, lacking a complete ban on Heavy Fuel Oil and sufficient measures against black carbon pollution, a potent contributor to Arctic warming. 

UNCLOS signatories are obligated to protect the marine environment. However, the treaty makes no explicit mention of climate change and addresses only incidental aspects of ocean-related climate events. 

Article 87 of the UNCLOS declares that “the high seas are open to all states.” However, our scientific understanding of the Arctic marine environment beyond national jurisdiction is still limited, and the significant changes occurring there pose a serious threat to Arctic marine ecosystems. 

Until the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction under UNCLOS was signed in 2023, there lacked a cohesive binding treaty that covered the aspects of biodiversity conservation with respect to commercial shipping. The entire conservation regime in the Arctic was extremely fragmented among the major conventions like the UNCLOS and the Convention on Biological Diversity as well as numerous local and regional conservation protocols. More specifically, the UNCLOS never explicitly mentioned the protection of Arctic biodiversity in its document. Its provisions on biodiversity conservation were also overly generic and ill-suited to the Arctic’s unique environment. As such, they fell short of establishing a comprehensive legal regime for the Arctic, especially beyond national jurisdiction.

Shipping in Arctic waters grew by 25% between 2013 and 2019, with sailing distances jumping by 75%. And with the 

The 2021 Suez Canal blockage highlighted the vulnerability of existing global shipping routes, further accelerating interest in Arctic alternatives. The Northern Sea Route (NSR) and the Northwest Passage (NWP) offer significantly reduced distances between major global trade hubs – the NSR can cut transit times between Europe and Asia by up to 40%  compared to the Suez Canal. 

The intensification of shipping has profound environmental and socio economic consequences.

Increased CO2 emissions and short-lived climate forcers like black carbon from marine vessels accelerate melting by darkening snow and ice. The climate impact of these emissions in the Arctic can be significantly higher than in traditional shipping regions due to the region’s inherent positive feedback loop: as white ice melts, it exposes the darker ocean surface, which in turn absorbs more sunlight and heat, accelerating ice melt and regional warming. 

The risk of oil spills from increased tanker traffic and resource extraction activities poses another catastrophic threat to the fragile Arctic ecosystem, while increased vessel traffic can also lead to habitat disruption, the introduction of invasive species, and overall stress on the vulnerable Arctic marine environment. 

The development of Arctic shipping also facilitates infrastructure investment in ports, icebreakers, and navigation aids. While offering economic opportunities for resource extraction and necessitating infrastructure investment, these developments can have a detrimental impact on Indigenous communities who rely on the Arctic’s ecosystems for their traditional ways of life, affecting food security, cultural preservation, and human rights. 

Coastal communities may also lack the capacity to accommodate the influx of tourists and large vessels. While the shorter routes offer potential cost savings for international shippers, these savings may be offset by increased risks, insurance costs, and the need for icebreaker escorts in certain conditions.

The urgency of the climate crisis and the complex geopolitical landscape demand adaptive governance mechanisms.

Although the Paris Agreement does not directly regulate the seas, its overarching goals and principles about reducing emissions are highly relevant to the protection of the marine environment under UNCLOS. Therefore, a country’s failure to meet its Paris Agreement commitments could be seen as a failure to exercise due diligence in protecting the oceans under UNCLOS.

The Polar Code requires revisions and strengthening to address regulatory gaps, such as mandatory provisions for non-SOLAS ships (vessels not covered by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, such as fishing vessels, smaller cargo ships under 500 gross tonnage, and pleasure yachts) and stringent emission standards for pollutants like black carbon. Regional restrictions, such as speed limits and underwater noise rules are also needed, alongside establishing an efficient Arctic Port State Control mechanism – a system whereby Arctic port states inspect foreign ships entering their ports to ensure compliance with international rules. 

Given its exclusion of military issues, separate, informal forums like restarting Arctic Chiefs of Defense Staff Conferences might be necessary to address security risks. For better overall Arctic governance, the Council can evolve by returning to its core principles of science diplomacy to rebuild trust strained by geopolitical tensions. 

The Ottawa Declaration of the Arctic Council on the sustainable development and environmental protection of the Arctic limits its direct evolution to address military risks. Adaptations could involve adjusting the Council’s constitutive arrangements, perhaps through a protocol to the Declaration, and rationalizing relations within the broader Arctic governance system. This could minimize interference and maximize synergy, potentially by revisiting the role of Observers. Moreover, increasing the priority on the urgent needs of Arctic peoples in the face of climate change is also important.

The lack of a comprehensive international regulatory framework specific to the Arctic leaves critical gaps in environmental protection, safety standards, and enforcement. As traffic increases, pressure will mount on states and international institutions to evolve governance systems. 

Effective international cooperation remains crucial to navigate geopolitical tensions, resolve legal disputes, and ensure the safe and sustainable development of Arctic shipping. The choices made in national policies will significantly shape the future of this unique and vital region.

Tagged:
Arctic Explainer Glacial melting UNCLOS