Arctic Yearbook 2012
Finger-Stich and Finger
Huyrechts, P., Kuhn, M., Lambeck, K., Nuhan M.T. & Woodworth Q.P.L. (2001). Changes in
sea level. IPCC Chap. 11. 642. Retrieved from, www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-
11.pdf. And UNEP, GRID (2007) Global Outlook For Ice and Snow.
See, UNEP (2007), Global Outlook for Ice and Snow ; AMAP, SWIPA (2011). The Snow,
Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic report. AMAP SWIPA report summary for policy
makers; Richter-Menge, J.,M.O. Jeffris & J.E. Overland (Eds.). (2011). The Arctic report card.
Retrieved from, www.arcti.noaa.gov/reportcard.
Hydrocarbons persist longer in cold waters, and Arctic food chains are more prone to bio-
accumulation, as they are composed of relatively few species, they are also less resilient to
environmental change. The Arctic Council’s Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA)
underlines that: “
oil spill prevention is the highest priority in the Arctic environmental protection
Council 2011: 11).
Permanent participants have the right to “active participation and full consultation”. Like states,
they also have the right to present proposals for cooperative activities. This status is distinct
from the “Observers” status, which the Arctic Council reserves to (some) non-Arctic states,
intergovernmental and inter-parliamentary organizations and non-governmental organizations
(Arctic Council 1996).
CAFF is working with the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP) and the
GEPON Arctic Biodiversity Observation Network. The CBMP is endorsed by the Arctic
Council and the CBD and builds also on traditional ecological knowledge. Indeed, the CBMP
and CAFF recognize the importance of indigenous technical knowledge to the conservation of
biodiversity. CAFF estimates the loss of indigenous languages since 1800 to be 20, and half of
the lost languages disappeared after 1990 (one in Finland, one in Canada, one in Alaska and 17
in the Russian Arctic region) (CAFF, Arctic Council, 2010).
Declaration adopted at the Meeting on the International Polar Year and Polar Science, by the
Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Arctic Council Joint Meeting 6/4/2009.
All Arctic Ocean rim states have settled Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) extending up to 200
nautical miles (370 km), from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is
measured. Within their EEZ, UNCLOS – to which all Arctic states but the USA are Parties –
says that “states have sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving
and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to
the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil” (UNCLOS, Part V, Art.55.). Furthermore, based
on their continental shelf, States can possibly claim up to 350 nautical miles. Up to now, two
states, Russia and Norway, have received a decision from the Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf (CLCS) concerning such claims. Beyond these claimed zones are the « High
Seas ». However most of the Arctic Ocean is already under the jurisdiction of one of the rim
states. (House of Commons, 2012, Fig 3 Maritime Jurisdiction and Boundaries).
See the 99
session of IMO’s committee (International Maritime Organization), where UK,
Norway, US and Canada blocked a proposal of Indonesia to develop a global liability regime for
offshore oil exploration and exploitation, a proposal supported by Bellona and other NGOs, as
well as by the European Commission which has an observer status at IMO. Ostman, K. (2012).
IMO fails to prioritize global offshore liability regimes
. Bellona. Retrieved (05.2.2012) from,