Arctic Science Cooperation Agreement
A summary of relevant laws on scientific research in the Arctic shows that an international agreement is needed to facilitate access for scientists (Weidemann, 2014:140). Countries` national laws regulate the entry and exit of researchers, scientific equipment, instruments, data and samples under their sovereign jurisdiction. Within a country, subnational governments may issue different and additional regulations for permits required for scientists. At the international level, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) regulates access for scientists conducting research in marine science; The 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears requires parties to facilitate access for scientists researching polar bear species. and the Treaty of Svalbard of 1920 calls on its contracting parties to promote favourable conditions for scientific research in the Norwegian archipelago of Spitsbergen. These agreements do not cover the entire Arctic geographic region or all areas of scientific research. For Arctic scientists working in different jurisdictions, it can be difficult to determine all relevant laws and procedures.2 In 2013, the Arctic Council announced that it would begin work on an agreement on improving collaboration in scientific research. At the time, it was not a foregone conclusion that this work would lead to the third binding agreement negotiated under the auspices of the Arctic Council; This action was taken in 2015 at the ninth ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council in Iqaluit, Canada. The agreement “provides an opportunity to advance Arctic research beyond what was previously possible,” John Farrell, executive director of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, an independent federal agency, told Eos. Mr Farrell, as Executive Director of the Commission, is the US government`s “competent national authority” with regard to the agreement. He said that in a broader sense, the agreement “is important because it provides another mechanism by which the conduct of scientific research serves as a means of soft diplomacy between nations that sometimes experience tensions in other sectors.” The eight member states of the Arctic Council committed to improving cooperation in the field of Arctic science through a legally binding agreement entitled “Agreement on Strengthening International Scientific Cooperation in the Arctic”, which was concluded on 11 October.
It was signed in May 2017 at the Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in Fairbanks, Alaska. It was the third binding agreement in the Arctic Council`s 20-year history. The first two focused on search and rescue, as well as oil spill response. U.S. scientists and other “parties” (as defined in the agreement) who encounter difficulties addressed in the agreement in one of the other seven Arctic governments (Canada, Denmark [Greenland/Faroe Islands], Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, and Sweden) must contact the United States Arctic Research Commission (USARC), which under the agreement is the “competent national authority” for the United States of America. Contact Dr. John Farrell, Executive Director (703-525-0113, jfarrell@arctic.gov). Please do not attempt to contact the competent national authority of any country other than the U.S. Arctic directly. National authorities prefer to work directly with each other on behalf of scientists in their respective countries.
“As the Arctic opens up to new challenges and opportunities, we must jointly manage and share responsibility for what people do in the Arctic. Honestly, we can`t spoil that! This agreement is extremely important to promote scientific cooperation among all Arctic countries, as we are witnessing the rapid transition of the entire Arctic system due to climate change. The massive loss of summer sea ice and the reality of ice-free Arctic summers, which can only take place in 10 years, are an international turning point,” said Brigham-Grette, a professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “Sea ice is changing, commercial fishing is migrating, permafrost is thawing, shipping routes are changing, etc. As the Arctic opens up to new challenges and opportunities, we must jointly manage and share responsibility for what people do in the Arctic. Honestly, we can`t mess it up! “The agreement is composed of great words and intentions, but it must be exercised to determine its effectiveness and value. Rich said he had heard of “many situations where researchers have encountered problems that have hindered, delayed or prevented their studies.” He said that while he can`t talk about the motivations of different countries, researchers have sometimes struggled to export their samples from Russia and other countries to places where they can be analyzed effectively; apparently arbitrary decisions taken at regional or local level have prevented access to certain vessels, research stations or field sites; ==References=====External links===*Official website The parties to the agreement are currently in the process of establishing specific procedures and processes necessary for the implementation of the agreement and a statement of work can be prepared. International scientific cooperation serves the common interests of many States. The scientific agreement underlines the role that a legally binding instrument can play in strengthening this cooperation. This assessment of the agreement suggests that a legally binding instrument can play a role, but its success depends on states` ambitions.
Given the number of climate changes currently occurring in the Arctic and around the world, it may be useful to explore the potential of a legally binding agreement to see how this tool can help states understand these changes. For Robert Rich, executive director of the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States (ARCUS), the agreement means there could be an improved research climate in the Arctic. “The Arctic research community is excited about the prospects of removing the barriers that the effective implementation of the agreement could achieve,” he told Eos. Thus, it remains possible to deny access despite all futile efforts or insufficient resources to facilitate access or existing procedures or guidelines contrary to the objectives of the Agreement. Will this agreement improve scientific cooperation in the Arctic in practice? While the intention is positive, some question whether this will be the case, as the document contains several fallback clauses. Article 17 provides that Parties may further strengthen and facilitate cooperation with non-Contracting Parties in the field of scientific research in the Arctic, and this provision on cooperation with non-Contracting Parties is not legally binding on the Parties. This is important because Arctic science is global and has always been conducted between Arctic and non-Arctic states.9 This determination has been criticized in other scientific papers, such as those by Shibata and Raita (158-162) and Liu (55), for perhaps creating a two-tier system in the Arctic. This could hinder rather than promote international cooperation in the scientific field. If you are a U.S.-based scientist facing a challenge covered by the agreement, please contact the U.S. Arctic Research Commission by phone (703-525-0111) or email (info [at] arctic.gov). Article 4 deals with the international movement of persons, equipment and materials.
This provision calls on parties to make every effort to facilitate the entry and exit of persons, research platforms, materials, samples, data and equipment of participants. No other existing multilateral legal agreement relating to scientific research in the Arctic creates this obligation. .
- Posted by adriel
- On January 27, 2022
0 Comments