диссертация (1169188), страница 87
Текст из файла (страница 87)
This background, foreignscholars opine, requires “cross-sectoral” management strategies that would rest onintegrating natural factors and human activities. Such strategies should bedeveloped primarily at the global, but also, purportedly, at the regionalinternational level,517 rather than at the level of domestic legislation.516Cavalieri S.
and Kraemer R.A., Ed. by Berkman P.A. and others. Transatlantic Policy Options to Address theRapidly Changing Arctic. Environmental Security in the Arctic Ocean. Springer. Dordrecht. 2013, P. 282.517Ibid., P. 285.382In terms of useful practice, as part of that conceptual vision, scholars drawthe models of ecosystem management primarily in the EU and the U.S., as outlinedin the relatively recently adopted documents on Arctic legal policy.518Thus, the European Commission has stated that the comprehensiveecosystem-based management of human activities should supplement any stepsaimed at adapting to the changes in the Arctic and related to climate change.
Anechoing approach has been outlined in the American President’s directives: therespective executive authorities should carry out marine ecosystem-basedmanagement in the Arctic. Both the EU and the US apply ecosystem managementin their EEZs and, according to foreign specialists, could jointly promotetransboundary and inter-sectoral management in the Arctic. They could also worktogether on the Arctic Ocean Assessment to designate marine areas that needprotecting.519Another issue of the Arctic region that is becoming more acute, asemphasized by foreign analysts, is the social one.
The Arctic is home to 4 millionpeople, including over thirty indigenous peoples who speak a dozen differentlanguages.520 It is important that the lands where such peoples reside are notviewed only as a source of resources for business, but that these peoplesthemselves should become the “proprietors” and their rights should not be ignoredin the course of changes and development of governance.The indigenous peoples of the Arctic have been living there for thousands ofyears thanks to marine, as well as land-based living resources and sources ofdrinking water.
Traditional environmental knowledge rooted in the knowledge ofgeography and history of this region is now facing the peril of disappearance, just518European Union Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. TheEuropean Union and the Arctic Region. (2008) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/; United States (2009a) Arctic RegionPolicy. National Security Presidential Directive 66 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 25, Washington,DC, Jan 2009. http://georgewbush-whitchouse.archives.gov/; United States Fisheries of the United States ExclusiveEconomic Zone off Alaska; Fisheries of the Arctic Management Area: Bering Sea Subarea.
Fed Regist. (2009b)74(211):56734-56746. http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/frules/74fr56734pdf519Cavalieri S. and. Kraemer R.A, op. cit. P. 285.520AHDR Arctic Human Development Report. Sustainable Development Working Group of the Arctic Council.Akureyri. (2004) http://www.svs.is/AHDR/.383like the languages of these peoples. Climate change in the Arctic is directlyaffecting the social and economic status of the population, and primarily of theindigenous peoples, since the entire ecosystem to which they owe their survival forthousands of years in harsh northern conditions, is changing as the ice cover thinsout.Both the EU and US are calling for the recognition of the important role ofindigenous peoples in decision-making. These peoples have various levels ofautonomy.
For instance, the Kalaallit and Inuit in Greenland, the Inuit and Saamiliving in the European Arctic have rather wide rights.Scholars see various ways to support indigenous peoples in the face of therapidly changing Arctic ecosystem. In particular, this implies a higher status for theArctic Council or another international forum that could be created in the future.Moreover, they suggest using a portion of income from economic activities toexpand their participation in the Council’s work, as well as implementingadjustment measures.Adjustment to climate change in the Arctic is the key issue for thepopulation of the Extreme North, including its indigenous peoples.
An assessmentof vulnerability and possibility of such adaptation, initially suggested by the ArcticCouncil,521 would assist in identifying critical needs and priorities in the adaptationprocess. This assessment, according to the Arctic Council document, should bebased on the opinion of the respective local communes; it is reasonable tointroduce “legal instruments enabling indigenous people to be actively involved indeveloping a new legal regime” of environmental protection and exploitation ofthe natural resources of the sea and land, as well as of the development of such aregime.As the third issue of the contemporary Arctic that is due to climate change,foreign political and legal studies name the environmental legal regime offisheries.
It is noted that in some parts of the Arctic Ocean, first of all the BarentsSea and southern Norwegian Sea, industrial fisheries have long been and are521Project: Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in the Arctic (VACCA project).384conducted still. But it is only recently, in view of ice thawing in the Arctic, that thefishing industry has been able to access new areas, first and foremost those beyondthe 200-mile EEZs of the U.S. and Russia in the Chukchi Sea.In the long-term, the impact of climate change on fish stocks is hard topredict; the most likely scenario noted by foreign analysis is that fish populationswill go up to the North Pole.
A report prepared by the US Arctic ResearchCommission in 2002 states that climate change is likely to cause an intensificationof fishing activities in the Arctic, including in high seas areas, primarily in theBeaufort and Chukchi Seas, and the Bering Sea.522In this regard, foreign analysts find it logical to ask how the movement offish stocks northward and their reduction in the southern Arctic Ocean can affectrelations between Arctic states and between Arctic and non-Arctic states. Disputeson the matter may arise not only between neighbouring Arctic states, but also intheir relations with non-Arctic states, primarily due to the commercial fishmigrating to the high seas in the central Arctic Ocean.
However, analysts believethat, as evidenced by the “fishing wars” between states, conflicts in fisheries do notresult in serious tensions in interstate political relations.523Nevertheless, in legal terms, the opening of new fishing opportunities in thehigh seas areas of the Arctic Ocean has caused a huge lacuna in the regulation ofArctic fishing to emerge. The majority of foreign legal scholars believe thatexisting agreements do not cover these high seas areas.
Moreover, the world,including the FAO Committee on Fisheries, does not have a full database on thestate of Arctic fish stocks, and their assessment is necessary to legitimize newfishing operations by way of development of new treaties on the conservation andmanagement of fish stocks.Foreign legal scholars see a prospect of international legal regulation in thesphere in continuing the steps undertaken primarily by the US. In 2008, the US522United States. Arctic Research Commission the Arctic Ocean and climate change: a scenario for the US Navy.USArcticResearchCommissionSpecialPublicationNo.02-1,Arlington,(2002).http://www.arctic.gov/publications/arctic_and_climate_change.pdf.523Zellen B.S. Arctic doom, Arctic boom: the geopolitics of climate change in the Arctic.
Praeger. Santa Barbara.2009.385launched a policy, via an act of the Senate, aimed at negotiating with Russia andother Arctic States and elaborating treaties for the conservation of migratory andstraddling fish stocks in the Arctic Ocean. In 2009, the Obama Administration,following a recommendation by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council,prohibited practically all commercial fishing along the Alaska coasts north of theBering Strait until data are collected on the impact of climate change on Arctic fishstocks.
The EU, although most of its members are not Arctic states, followed theexample of the US and set a moratorium on Arctic fishing on the high seas.524This proximity of the legal positions of the US and EU provides anopportunity, according to foreign scholars, to coordinate efforts within variousinternational fora, so as to ensure international legal enforcement in the northernseas only of the regulated, controlled and accountable Arctic fishing. Following thescholars’ idea, an integrated approach to managing marine fish stocks would beoptimal in this case; it would be balanced with the legal regulation of other spheresof activity in the Arctic (navigation, sea oil and gas extraction, creation ofmaritime protected areas).
The Arctic TRANSFORM Fisheries Working Groupcame up with a proposal back in 2008 for the organisation by the US of a top-levelinternational conference on bringing marine fisheries in the Arctic to order. Theresult, according to the initiators of the idea, could be a declaration on the futurefishing procedure in the Arctic.The initiators of the conference believed that the declaration might:- acknowledge the potential expansion of commercial fisheries in the Arctic;- acknowledge the subsistence needs of indigenous communities that aretraditionally dependent on marine living resources;- make a commitment to undertake or enhance cooperative research effortsto assess the likely expansion of such fisheries in the Arctic and the potentialeffects of such fisheries on marine ecosystems and indigenous communities;524European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
