Extraction in Arctic: ecological collapse?

Extraction in Arctic: ecological collapse?

According to the estimates, Russian extracting technologies that were developed in the Soviet times lie quite far from the modern European analogues[6]. The low level of technological development increases the risk of ecological disasters. First of all, the oil extraction is “dirty” activity that pollutes the atmosphere and soil by discharging the heavy metals, sulfur and nitrogen oxides[7]. In 1994 the oil spill in the Komi republic happened. This kind of events is a huge threat to animals which die in “oil traps”, because only around 10% of spilled oil can be collected in Arctic water[8]. The consequences of oil discharges may not be seen immediately: pollutants accumulate into the animals’ tissues and spread through the food chain. Then, Arctic suffers from radioactivity. The high level of radioactive contamination of Novaya Zemlya archipelago is a legacy of USSR’s nuclear tests[9]. The problem also relates to the modern rig “Prirazlomnaya”, which is made from the Norwegian rig and has unfavorable radiation background[10].

This rig became well-known after the international accident in 2013, when 30 “Greenpeace” activists from 18 countries on a ship “Arctic Sunrise” tried to board on “Prirazlomnaya”. However, they were stopped by Russian border guards. Later, they were charged with piracy, and the boat was sent to Murmansk[11].

Normative acts

Which international normative acts can regulate the Russian activity in Arctic region? Specialist in Russia’s politics M. Laruelle suggests the following[12]:

1. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The contamination of Arctic waters and soil by hydrocarbons, heavy metals, high radiation is the violation of art. 194 parts 1 and 2. According to them, states are obliged “to implement measures to prevent, reduce and control the pollution of the environment from any source”. States’ activity mustn’t damage other states. Art. 211 claims that states must establish “standards to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of sea environment from the ships”[13].

2. Talking about ships, the second act is International Convention for the Prevention Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) which forbids discharge of oil into the sea (rule 9)[14].

3. Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment in the North-East Atlantic. Art. 2 Annex V claims that states shall “take the necessary measures to protect and conserve the ecosystem and biological diversity of the maritime area”. The dumping of wastes from offshore installations is prohibited (art. 3. 1., An. III), whereas discharges from land-based and offshore sources shall be regulated[15].

In my view, these acts do not fully prevent the contamination. In MARPOL the notion of “discharge” is quite blurred. According to art. 2. 3. a, discharge of a pollutant into the sea is considered as such “regardless of its cause”. Although it is forbidden by aforementioned rule 9, at the same time the document includes the long list of exceptions regarding the type of the ship and its location, the mass of the load and the oil spilled. This congestion with definitions and formulas makes the document difficult to understand and admits the contamination, for example, in “scientific” goals (art. 2. 3. b. iii).

Convention of Marine Environment art. 3 forbids dumping of wastes from offshore installations, but this “prohibition does not relate to discharges from offshore sources”. The terms used there seem synonymous, which creates obstacles to the translation and interpretation.

Taking the recent level of Arctic’s contamination into account, the most radical, but effective decision is to create nature reserve in Arctic region. The Antarctic region is already a reserve, which is open only for scientific development, according to Agreement about Antarctica (1959). In this zone, the military activity, extraction of fossil fuels and minerals, and commercial fishing are forbidden. Some experts claim that the need to save the environment prompts the humanity to do the same with the Arctic[16]. Moreover, the economic cost wouldn’t be very significant, because, as it was already stated, the Arctic oil is only 13% (or even 10% in some sources) of world’s undiscovered oil. Middle East and Venezuela would be substitutes for Arctic oil, and South Africa for gold and diamonds, respectively.

Unfortunately, it wouldn’t be an easy task to close Arctic from industrial needs. Firstly, it contradicts the interests of huge corporations who get state budget’s money for exploration and the revenue from oil and gas selling[17]. Secondly, Arctic is considered as a sovereign Russian territory[18]. And the conflict with “Greenpeace” activists (and establishing of flag in 2007) are the attempts to demonstrate that no one can cross the line of Russian sphere of influence.

In a situation when the perspective of creating of Arctic reserve seems vague, Russia shall accept that the problem of contamination of Arctic region exists, and this territory needs more careful attitude. Nowadays the meaning of international cooperation grows. Scientists, politicians and businessmen shall continue negotiations with the aim to reduce the scale of resources’ extraction and develop new environmentally-friendly technologies to save the region for future generations.

Bibliography:

1. Arctic region [Electronic resource] URL: https: //www. arcticcentre. org/EN/arcticregion#

2. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea [Electronic resource] URL: https: //www. un. org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e. pdf

3. Convention for the Prevention Pollution from Ships [Electronic resource] URL: http: //www. sur. ru/upload/legislation/MARPOL_file_1_37_3567. pdf

4. Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment in the North-East Atlantic [Electronic resource] URL: https: //www. ospar. org/convention

5. Greenpeace activists charged with piracy by Russian authorities [Electronis resource] The Guardian URL:

https: //www. theguardian. com/environment/2013/oct/02/greenpeace-activists-charged-piracy-russian-authorities

6. Laruelle M. Russia’s Arctic strategies and the future of the Far North // Routledge. 2015. 253 p.

7. Medvedev S. The park of Crimean period: the chronics if the third term // Individuum Publishing. 2017. 190 p.

8. Vilchek G. E. et al “The environment in the Russian arctic: Status report // Polar Geography. 1996. Vol. 20. №1. P. 20-43.

[1] Arctic region [Electronic resource] URL: https: //www. arcticcentre. org/EN/arcticregion#

[2] Laruelle M. Russia’s Arctic strategies and the future of the Far North // Routledge. 2015. P. 136.

[3] Ibid. P. 135.

[4] Ibid. P. 140, 146.

[5] Ibid. P. 140-141.

[6] Ibid. P. 145.

[7] Vilchek G. E. et al “The environment in the Russian arctic: Status report // Polar Geography. 1996. Vol. 20. №1. P. 24.

[8] Medvedev S. The park of Crimean period: the chronics if the third term // Individuum Publishing. 2017. P. 11.

[9] Vilchek G. E. Op. cit. P. 27, 33.

[10] Medvedev S. Op. cit. P. 10-11.

[11] Greenpeace activists charged with piracy by Russian authorities [Electronis resource] The Guardian URL: https: //www. theguardian. com/environment/2013/oct/02/greenpeace-activists-charged-piracy-russian-authorities

[12] Laruelle M. Op. cit. P. 147.

[13] UN Convention on the Law of the Sea [Electronic resource] URL: https: //www. un. org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e. pdf P. 98, 103.

[14] Convention for the Prevention Pollution from Ships [Electronic resource] URL: http: //www. sur. ru/upload/legislation/MARPOL_file_1_37_3567. pdf

[15] Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment in the North-East Atlantic [Electronic resource] URL: https: //www. ospar. org/convention

[16] Medvedev S. Op. cit. P. 12.

[17] Ibid. P. 11.

[18] Ibid.

⇐ Предыдущая 1 2 34