In that way, it could follow the example set by the Council of Europe, amongst
others. While the latter organization might be most famous for the creation of the
European Convention on Human Rights, a wide range of international treaties have
been created under its auspices, enabling member States to tackle problems shared
by many of them. It is easy to envisage a similar development for the Arctic Council.
In addition, the AC can learn from the work of the A5 in the context of Arctic Ocean
fisheries: by getting selected outside actors (the +5 in the A5+5) on board early in the
process but after significant preparatory work had already been done on the A5 level,
the A5 have ensured that the CAOFA which applies to the central Arctic Ocean (high
seas which, after all, can be used by vessels from all States) has a real chance of
being implemented.
Because the AC remains the most important forum on Arctic governance, taking
note of the specific success of the effort by the A5 might be a way to contribute to
ensuring that the relationship between the A5 and the AC remains one of cooperation
within the AC framework rather than one of competition. Cumulatively, the efforts
undertaken by the different actors in the Arctic, in particular the Arctic Council and
the A5(+5), amount to the beginnings of something that might evolve into an
informal regional seas program.
For the time being, the few existing rules that can be used to protect the marine
environment of the CAO are insufficient to manage the predictable challenges of the
near future.
86 In other contexts, Arctic States would be well advised to make use of
existing international rules and to ensure their effective implementation. A case in
point is ballast water: Ballast water is a particular problem in the Arctic because “[s]
ince Arctic ports are used mostly to export raw materials, ships generally arrive with
little cargo and full ballast tanks”
87 and ballast water, which can contain invasive
species, is emptied into the water at ports in the Arctic. An effective implementation
of the Convention for Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and
Sediments
88 (BWM Convention) is therefore in the interest of at least the A5,
which will want to preserve the integrity of the Arctic marine environment. As
there is already an international legal framework in place, there is no need for
regulatory work on the part of the AC or the A5, but Arctic States could cooperate
to identify best practices regarding the implementation of the BWM Convention and
to improve compliance across the region.
89
86 Kirchner and Kleemola-Juntunen (2018), p. 34.
87 Byers (2013), p. 189.
88 International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments
(2004).
89 At the time of writing (early 2019), Canada, Norway, Sweden and Russia have acceded to the
BWM Convention. Finland has accepted the Convention while neither the United States nor Iceland
are parties to it. Denmark has acceded to the BWM Convention but at the same time declared that
the BWM Convention would not apply to Greenland (the simultaneous declaration that the BWM
Convention would not apply to Faroyar was withdrawn in 2015), IMO (2019), pp. 517 et seq. The
example of the BWM Convention highlights that shared challenges do no not necessarily lead to
joint approaches among the Arctic States.
74
T. Koivurova et al.
others. While the latter organization might be most famous for the creation of the
European Convention on Human Rights, a wide range of international treaties have
been created under its auspices, enabling member States to tackle problems shared
by many of them. It is easy to envisage a similar development for the Arctic Council.
In addition, the AC can learn from the work of the A5 in the context of Arctic Ocean
fisheries: by getting selected outside actors (the +5 in the A5+5) on board early in the
process but after significant preparatory work had already been done on the A5 level,
the A5 have ensured that the CAOFA which applies to the central Arctic Ocean (high
seas which, after all, can be used by vessels from all States) has a real chance of
being implemented.
Because the AC remains the most important forum on Arctic governance, taking
note of the specific success of the effort by the A5 might be a way to contribute to
ensuring that the relationship between the A5 and the AC remains one of cooperation
within the AC framework rather than one of competition. Cumulatively, the efforts
undertaken by the different actors in the Arctic, in particular the Arctic Council and
the A5(+5), amount to the beginnings of something that might evolve into an
informal regional seas program.
For the time being, the few existing rules that can be used to protect the marine
environment of the CAO are insufficient to manage the predictable challenges of the
near future.
86 In other contexts, Arctic States would be well advised to make use of
existing international rules and to ensure their effective implementation. A case in
point is ballast water: Ballast water is a particular problem in the Arctic because “[s]
ince Arctic ports are used mostly to export raw materials, ships generally arrive with
little cargo and full ballast tanks”
87 and ballast water, which can contain invasive
species, is emptied into the water at ports in the Arctic. An effective implementation
of the Convention for Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and
Sediments
88 (BWM Convention) is therefore in the interest of at least the A5,
which will want to preserve the integrity of the Arctic marine environment. As
there is already an international legal framework in place, there is no need for
regulatory work on the part of the AC or the A5, but Arctic States could cooperate
to identify best practices regarding the implementation of the BWM Convention and
to improve compliance across the region.
89
86 Kirchner and Kleemola-Juntunen (2018), p. 34.
87 Byers (2013), p. 189.
88 International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments
(2004).
89 At the time of writing (early 2019), Canada, Norway, Sweden and Russia have acceded to the
BWM Convention. Finland has accepted the Convention while neither the United States nor Iceland
are parties to it. Denmark has acceded to the BWM Convention but at the same time declared that
the BWM Convention would not apply to Greenland (the simultaneous declaration that the BWM
Convention would not apply to Faroyar was withdrawn in 2015), IMO (2019), pp. 517 et seq. The
example of the BWM Convention highlights that shared challenges do no not necessarily lead to
joint approaches among the Arctic States.
74
T. Koivurova et al.