The creation of Ruskaya Arktika: environmental project hiding Arctic strategy in Russia more

The creation of Ruskaya Arktika: environmental project hiding Arctic strategy in Russia by Sébastien Maffione, Camille Hamm, Arctic Studies March 2011. Man and environment 1 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION (C. HAMM)…………………………………………………………………………………….3 I. AND SUDDENLY, A NATIONAL PARK : INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN ECONOMICAL AND ECOLOGICAL ASPIRATIONS IN NEW Z EMLYA …………………………..…………………………….4 1) AN ISLAND AT THE CROSSROADS OF MILITARY AND COMMERCIAL HISTORY. (C.HAMM)………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…4 2) THE NATIONAL PARK IN RUSSIA: A RECENT CONCEPT (S. M AFFIONE)…………………………..7 II. INSTRUMENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE IN THE RUSSIAN ARCTIC...............................................................................................................................................10 1) RUSSIAN GEOSTRATEGIC CONTEXT IN ARCTIC. (S. MAFFIONE)……………………………….…..10 2) THE ARCTIC RUSSIAN PARK AS A STRATEGIC TOOL FOR THE ENERGETIC ASPIRATIONS OF THE F EDERAL R EPUBLIC OF R USSIA. (C.HAMM )…………………………………………………......13 CONCLUSION (S. M AFFIONE)…………………………………………………………………………………16 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………………………………17 2 INTRODUCTION In the context of a general awakening of the consciousness regarding climate change all over the world, Russia is one of the last – late - important countries to officially join the general mind that measures have to be taken to ensure the preservation of natural resources. In 2009 Russia announced its commitment to reduce emission of greenhouse gas from 20 to 25% by 2020 compared to 1990, joining the one of the European Union in the perspective of the Copenhagen climate conference. He wants to improve the energy performance of Russian plants, and reduce the waste of energy consumed by the industry itself within the time-schedule fixed by his European partner. Moreover, the decision was taken to accelerate the establishment of national parks in the territory with objective to reach 3% of the country by 2020. And there is a premiere: 2009 Vladimir Putin officially announced the creation of the National Park Russkaya Arktika, in the archipelago of the New Zemlya, thus showing the renewed position of environmental voluntarism coming from the Federal Republic of Russia. Map 1: National parks and reserves in Russia (2005) : Novaya Zemlya, here not yet mentioned is going to be the northernmost national park of Russia. But this decision goes in contradiction with other Russian Parliament’s votes in favour of oil-drilling and industrial activity in the close Kara Sea; and more generally, it contradicts Russia’s strategy towards the hydrocarbon and oil resources of the Arctic region. So the question is to know what strategic manoeuvre is really hidden behind this sudden political will to change roads in the Russian Arctic. 3 I. “AND SUDDENLY, A N ATIONAL P ARK” : INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN ECONOMICAL AND ECOLOGICAL ASPIRATIONS IN NEW ZEMLYA. 1) AN ISLAND AT THE CROSSROADS OF MILITARY AND COMMERCIAL HISTORY. Whereas the Barents Sea has long been discovered in the sixteenth century, its strategic use in context of war becomes clear since 1905 when Russia had to find other ways of circulation and supplying while they are anticipating on future conflicts with Germany and Turkey. It is only in the 1950s that Russia puts its attention more intensely on the New Zemlya Island, during Cold War’s experiments on atomic weapons. Three successive sites in this area are the theatre of atomic bomb testing: The first one called “site A” in the Tchornaya Bay used from 1955 to 1962. The second one “site B” in the Matotshkine Detroit for underground from 1964 to 1990; And the third one, Sukoy Nos (1957-1962) is where the most powerful nuclear bomb ever exploded on earth in 1961, the Tsar Bomba. In fifty years of activity, from 1955 through to 1990 the Soviet Union detonated 88 atmospheric, 29 underground, and 3 underwater nuclear devices in Novaya Zemlya, considered as one of the largest military nuclear testing facilities in the Arctic. (Cf. Map 2. Nuclear activities in the Arctic over the last 50 years.) For security reasons, all archives of those almost fifty years have been destroyed. We only have UNO mandated analyses of possible impacts of the underground nuclear explosions held in New Zemlya, as track of this tumultuous past1. 1 Earthquakes Induced By Underground Nuclear Explosions, in NATO-ASI Series, Part 2 “Environment”, Vol4. 4 Map 2. Nuclear activities in the Arctic over the last 50 years. AMAP, 1997 and 1998; IAEA, 1991, 2001 and 1996; Crane and Galasso, 1999. Designer : Philippe Rekacewicz, UNEP/GRID-Arendal. New Zemlya’s specific attractiveness due to the richness of its soil, in petrol, oil and gas has only recently been an economical target : even though is it known that Russia’s resources in the Arctic region equal one fifth of the general disposable resources, the government first gave interest to the Barents Sea, followed by the Kara Sea. More recently, a contract has been signed with BP and the national firm Rosneft: the floating nuclear program in the Barents – Kara - Zemlya region is well under way, and should be ready in 2012. These mini-power bases/plants will aim to supply oil rigs or mines, isolated beyond the polar circle in areas not served by road. In the summer of 2009, Minister Vladimir Putin announced he had signed a government order establishing the National Park Russkaya Arktika (Russian Arctic) in the archipelago of Novaya Zemlya. The park was to be, as proposed by the Ministry of Natural resources, larger than 8 million hectares. Surprising after fifty years of nuclear activity, this initiative was welcome by NGOs such as the WWF, who had since a long time asked for a political decision to protect the site. But in July 2010, the inauguration was delayed to 2011 and tensions with ecological NGOs rose: the WWF accused the Department of Natural Resources of giving rapid permissions of exploitations in the region, taking the risk of engaging contradictory interests around the islands. Nowadays, about 2,700 people live in 5 the South-West part of the Island and the Russkaya Arktika National Park is located at the northern part of the island. Map 3. Protected areas of the Arctic as recognized by the IUCN in the World Protected Areas Database at UNEPWCMC, 2005. Designer: Hugo Ahlenius, UNEP/GRID-Arendal The problem raised is to know if an environmental protection makes, in regard to ecological problematic, still pertinent, while Russia’s legal opacity is described by experts as following: « L’environnement réglementaire est instable et clairement défavorable aux investissements extérieurs. » 2 2 La Russie, un géant énergétique aux portes de l’Union européenne, Guy Baudelle (in Cafés géographiques). 6 2) THE NATIONAL PARK IN RUSSIA: A RECENT CONCEPT. The idea of National Park was first articulated in XIXth century by the literature and was not considered by any government. It is Abraham Lincoln that for the first time was made an effort to protect a land3. However, the truly world’s first National Park was established in 1872, the Yellowstone National Park. Following the idea established in Yellowstone Park there soon followed other parks in many other nations. In Europe the first national park was created in 1910 in Sweden. Concerning the Russian Federation, we had to wait until 1983 to create the first national Parks4. According to the law on the protected areas of Russia, national parks are areas of land and water devoted to nature protection, ecological education, and scientific research. They contain sites of particular ecological, historical and aesthetic value. Regulated tourism is permitted5. The area of each park is divided into zones according to various functions. There should be a strictly protected area managed as a zapovednik6 and also recreational and buffer zones in which economic activity is allowed. If we consider that at the end of the World War II many countries founded National Parks, it should be considered late. But if we are looking for in details history, we could argue and understand the definition of a National Park in Russia and the creation of Russkaïa Arktika Park that it was will power of Soviet Union to have a perfect control of his territory due to the policy during the Cold War. In fact, one reason of this absence was the autarky Soviet Union policy as a “determined self-sufficiency and independence, such that no commercial, territorial or resource constraint could impair the nation’s access to industrial resources thought to be essential to national security and required for sovereignty”7. As we knows national Park are usually located in place which have been largely undeveloped (as Arctic), and often feature areas with exceptional animals, plants and ecosystems, biodiversity or unusual geological features. Occasionally, national parks are declared in developed areas with the goal of returning the area to resemble its original state as closely as possible. But, 3 Act of Congress signed in 1864 to the state of California. Sochinsky and Losiny Ostrov. Biodiversity Conservation Center Moscow. Closest term in english is scientific nature reserve www.crai.com/ 4 5 6 7 7 Soviet Union needed to have the control of the area because it’s closest to United States8 (map 4). It was a deterrent force to have military tasks, submarines in this area. Soviet Union understood well this requirement. So, preservation and environment was very second when we are remembering the Cold War context. Map 4: Distance between United States and Russia, Source Atlas, 2009 Moreover with the discovery of mineral resources during the 1930s (map 5), the first “settlements” which consisted of deportees from the Gulag were founded. During the cold war, the Arctic also acquired a strategic function before becoming, as is the case of Western Siberia in particular, a Soviet era oil Eldorado. Maritime ambitions also resulted in the creation of an industrial fishing fleet and a navy. After the collapse of the USSR and the new Russia’s quest for profitability, the viability of activities in an extreme environment was questioned. As the cold war ended, the strategic dimensions were of less concern for some time, naval manpower declined, and subsidies drastically reduced. However, the situation changed once again at the turn of the century. The Arctic has a future as a land and sea oil producer, and Russia hopes that these resources will enable it to maintain its position as a leading producer. The “super-giant” gas fields which will come into operation in 2010 could equal 50 years of the current Russian output. 8 92km from Alaska to Russia. 8 Map 5 :Repartition of Minerals resources in Soviet Union, Source Mapcruzin,1982. And that’s why we can explain the Russian National Park definition and the creation of a park in New Zemlya area. In the history of National Park, Park also serves as reserves for substantial natural resources, such as timbers, minerals and other valuable commodities. The management of the demand for extraction of these resources, against the damage this might cause, is often a very important challenge in national park management (South Africa)9. Consequently, Rousskaïa Arktika Park illustrates perfectly the definition of Minister of Natural Resources. In an area touched by the global warming and also where reproduction of the polar bears of the Barents Sea and Kara, but also the whale of Greenland, walruses, reindeers and numerous birds are in danger, the creation suddenly of a National Park raise questions. Because of wishes to Russia to be present in Arctic and the necessity for the external policy founded on energy, the definition of National Park is better understand. It seems clearly to be a strategic option for the natural resources than a real wish to preserve the Nature. Natural Park has the advantage to be considerate as a good initiate and permit to be discreet on the International area environment. But, as show the delay and the decision of ministry to reduce the surface of the Park, the question of geostrategic interest due to the future energy exploration and maritime routes still preeminent10. 9 CARRUTHERS Jane, Special Issue on the Politics of conservation in South Africa, Journal of Southern Africa studies, Vol.15 n° 1989, p.188-216. 2, Initially, the surface of the park had to, according to the proposition of the ministry, exceed 80.000 km ². It makes at present 14.260, among which 7.940 offshore and 6.320 on dry land. 10 9 II. Is there an instrumentation of the Environmental issue in Russian Arctic? 1) RUSSIAN GEOSTRATEGIC CONTEXT IN ARCTIC With climate change new opportunities for countries are now available. In Arctic, scientists are all agree to say that sea ice extent is decreasing. Consequently for the Arctic circumpolar countries new dynamics perspectives will appear and will contribute to their development. This situation is truer for the Russia Federation which has the largest territory in the Arctic and where also North is totally inside their history. With, the climate change U.S Geological survey released some truly stunning projections of undiscovered oil and gas resources north of the Arctic Circle11 most of which is in Russian Arctic. First world energy power in the world, the Russian energy production is using as geopolitical control lever, but it is above all shot to the domestic consumption, creating a real dependence in the primary sector. The national consumption is above all made by some gas (54 %), some oil (20,4 %) and some coal (16,2 %). Economy is based on very plentiful and promising natural resources which in there is Rousskaïa Arktika Park (map 6). Map 6 Undiscovered oil and gas in Arctic Source USGS, 2008. Russia detains 30 % of the world reserves of fossil energy, which are exploited or put in reserve according to logic of relative classic profitability in costs of production and transport of the goods. Today, the dynamism of the Russian energy production serves above all the tremendous 11 83 billion of oil and 44 trillion cubic meters of natural gas. 10 development of the exports, so much that certain observers speak about the production energy as about the "survival kit" for the Russian economy12. The energy is the heart of Russian foreign policy, Vladimir Putin so asserts that «nothing can stop him in the determination to reconstruct big Russia by the geostrategy”, and using National Park as in New Zemlya for oil and gas should be a smart strategy because nobody is looking a Park, because it suppose to preserve and keep the ecosystem. Moreover, the Park situation is a crossroads of new shipping route, so consequently using more this new shipping route to maritime transport will be a good opportunity for the Russia (Map 7). Map 7 Northeast Passage, Source Dunlap, 1996. Using the Northern Route is not new in the Russian history. Since 1930’s and the Soviet Project Program, vessels, boats passed through the Maritime Sea Route, but at the end of 1980’s due to the collapse of Soviet Union it was cancelled. With the piracy in African coast, Russia suggests carrying out maritime transportation from Europe to the ports of South-East Asia through the Arctic waters. "Clearly, this route is quite advantageous," said the president of International Maritime Law Association, Anatoly Kolodkin. “The northern maritime route is much cheaper and faster. Shipping routes around Europe and even around Africa are 4-5 times more expensive than the northern shipping route.13” This brings Asia closer to Europe. The route of the MV Nordic Barents, for instance, from the Norwegian port 12 BAUDEL.G, La Russie un géant énergétique aux portes de l’Union européenne, octobre 2010. th 13 LEVETIN Igor, , Russian Arctic shipping Route safer, may 27 , 2010, http://eyeonthearctic.rcinet.ca/en/news/russia/90-geopolitics/223-russian-arctic-shipping-route-saver-minister-igorlevitin 11 of Kirkenes to China, was shortened by roughly 50 percent14. For example distances between London and Yokohama will be 9000km shorter than using Panama Canal and 7000km to Suez Canal. It’s true that ice layers pose a danger to the northern route, but Russian, icebreakers can guarantee safety to ships and widen the time period that can be used for shipping. Russia is ambitious in this new shipping route and actually the traffic is increasing but to convince the companies, Russia has to get new types of ships. And even if polar sea is freer, you could meet icebergs. Another constraint is the visibility, in particular during the polar night. But, considering the low luminosity, whatever the period of the year, all the transhipments are made in the light of powerful projectors. Finally, it seems that Russia is not afraid of these constraints and believe strong that Northern Sea Route is the key for Russian economy due to in part of natural resources. Rousskaïa Arktika seems totally included in this project and still as before a crossroad in the future to be a navigation and natural resources control checkpoint (map 8). Map 8 : Russian economic’ project, 2006. 14 The race of Arctic, Spiegel online international, http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,719740,00.html September 27 , th 2010, 12 2) THE ARCTIC RUSSIAN PARK AS A STRATEGIC TOOL FOR THE ENERGETIC ASPIRATIONS OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF RUSSIA. It is important to remember Russian political history towards Environment to understand the strong tension related to Natural spaces. Where is the danger spotted? As mentioned before, USSR during Cold War used to practice the State Secret policy concerning many natural areas; with the falling of the Wall, however, Mikhail Gorbatshov managed to open some transparency in most of the public services, which concerned many Departments such as Environment. The Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986 was indeed a dramatic revelation that things had to change. After the creation of the Ministry of the Environment (1991), it was then Boris Eltsine who piloted the new federal constitution containing the article 41.3 recognizing to citizens the “right to live in a healthy environment and the right to have access to a liable information concerning ecology”15. But with the arrival of Vladimir Putin to the head of the State there was a significant turn in Russian policy: in 2000 the Ministry of the Environment was suppressed, the financial crisis in the Federation following the end of Cold War (loss of 40% of the Gross Domestic Product) required a laxity towards Nature aggressions for economical reasons. Already in the some affairs of “ecological espionage” were denounced by the ex KGB, the FSB. In this continuity, Putin was used to manipulate ecology NGOs on economic interest, often with the ally Gazprom16. This all explains why there is an ambiguity in the strategic impacts of the 2008 signature of reinforced cooperation between Norway and Russia in the Arctic. First it seems to be providing some evidence of a renewed approach, even if probably partly under pressure, that their future actions could be part of an mutual – moderate – control in the case of this cooperation; Norway’s Arctic territory is indeed on the two third protected already. Vladimir Putin even expressed the government’s voluntarism to open new dimension of economic development related to ecological tourism and the natural park’s attraction. Still the only international legislation now followed are the UNO convention on maritime right (1982) that Environnement et pollution en Russie et en Asie centrale : l’héritage soviétique ; Y a-t-il une politique russe de l’environnement ? in La Documentation Française, D'après notamment Jean-Robert Raviot, L'écologie aux frontières de la raison d'Etat, Revue d'études comparatives Est-Ouest, mars 2005. 15 2006: Under environmental protection pretext, Gazprom enforced Shell and two Japanese firms to sell 2/3 of their Sakhaline actions, under the threat of confiscation of their exploitation licence. 16 13 leaves sovereignty of action on coastal boarders : it is not possible to restrict any Russian intervention in their own arctic. Aware of this problematic history, the NGO WWF started vehement criticism towards Duma’s decisions: first their restriction of the boundaries of the National Park (initially meant to be 80,000 square kilometres, it is now around 15,000 km2): “The Russian government is arguing against the WWF's claims, stating that boundaries of the Russian Arctic national park haven't been drawn yet, but the Russian branch of WWF is reminding them that the lines were clearly drawn when the park was created last year with specific coordinates”17. The reason of this alert is the Duma’s authorization for the international firms BP and Rosneft to do offshore drilling at very close kilometres from Russkaya Arktika’s coasts, some three months after the official creation of the park in 2009. So what is the point in creating the first Russian Arctic National Park, if it is to encroach every month on its boundaries and to develop oil and gaz exploitation on its borders? History of the relation to national park and environment in a huge number of countries reveals that the interest are often more strategic than ecology oriented: in the Journal of Southern African Studies, Jane Carruthers develops the creation of national parks as the consideration of a natural area as an economic profit: “The creation of national parks - anywhere in the world - can only be understood in the context of the time and place in which this occurs. Fundamentally, the founding of a national park concerns the allocation of certain natural resources and for this reason it is a political, social and economic issue more than a moral one.”18 The subsequent question that is raised is whether the Duma is misappropriating a famous and threatening concept in the actual globalized geostrategy: the objective would be to protect, not really the natural area but rather Russia’s own interests behind the flag of force majeure. “If an area is uninhabited, it may be subject to international control” said Gennady Danilov, director of the Franz Joseph Natural Reserve, who naturally welcomes the fact that "nobody will look if it is classified as a national park." This is in general observation shared with Jane Carruther in regard to South Africa where on economical purpose; some exceptions to the preservation principle were existing: 17 Russia shrugs off worries in pursuing Arctic Oil , Andrew Kramer, Clifford Kraus, New York Times. Jane Carruthers, Journal Of Southern African Studies, op.cit. 18 14 “From the time of the establishment of game reserves early in the century, reserve officials had considered the interests of any industry to inimical to game protection. There was however an exception to this, namely, the mining industry. The Wit-watersrand mines required large contingents of unskilled labour and in the provision of manpower reserves co -operated with the mines. The Witwatersrand Native Labour Association was allowed to construct a road through the northern section of the game reserves in 1918 so that labourers recruited in Mozambique and elsewhere could make their way easily to the mines. “ Pragmatic consideration proves that even with the most voluntary impulse to save energy and to take measures in favour of the environment, a huge country such as Russia is not able to avoid seeking for new resources sources: indeed, “the future is on the shelf,” Mr. Chilingarov, a member of Russia’s Parliament, the Duma, said in an interview. “We already pumped the land dry.”19 This declaration nourishes the theory of the Tragedy of the Commons developed by Garrett HARDIN. Free access and unrestricted demand for a given resource ultimately reduces the resource through over-exploitation, temporarily or permanently. This occurs because the benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals or groups, each of whom is motivated to maximize use of the resource to the point in which they become reliant on it, while the costs of the exploitation are borne by all those to whom the resource is available. Russia has no choice but to pursue the exploitation of the rich soils that are by chance still on its territory, in the perspective of the layout of worldwide run for hydrocarbons and oils in general 19 Russia shrugs off worries in pursuing Arctic Oil (Andrew Kramer, Clifford Kraus, New York Times). 15 CONCLUSION Recently Vladimir Putin, announced to want cleaned up the far North, heritage of Soviet Union. "We are planning to do a serious spring-cleaning of our Arctic territories,"20 he said. The challenges are immense. Roughly a million Russians have their homes within the Arctic Circle and more than a tenth of the country's economic output is generated there. Environmental problems are practically unavoidable. Even Putin admits that the development of the Far North hasn't always been well-thought-out and done in a way that made economic sense. In the continuation, he announced that the natural resources would be only extracted in accordance with the highest environmental standards. Will such promises be kept? Will the ambitious cleanup projects actually be launched? Through the creation of Rousskaïa Arktika Park in 2009 which still not ready, we can be skeptic. If at first sight, the initiative to create a National Park appears as a good environment thing, the study of this Park showed us the real ambitions and perspectives in New-Zemlya area. In the past, geostrategic area and object of particular attention, NewZemlya will become again an important place for Arctic strategy of Russia. Russian government has understood that and in a context of sovereignty matters because of climate change, they found an original issue, create a National Park. Leaning on the Russian national park definition, government has created the Park to hide the economic needs and oil exploration. As said Gennady Danilov, Director of Natural reserve of St-Joseph “if a territory is without people, it could have an international control, but with a national park nobody will regard it”21. Finally, Russian situation may be abstract with Garrett Hardin approach in a sense of where the free access to a limited resource (oil) which the demand is strong leads inevitably to the over exploitation of this resources and finally to its disappearance. Consequently, as usual, the loser will be not the human but the Nature. 20 Spiegel Journal op.cit PERRIN Gwendal, La Russie s’engage pour la biodiversité, July 8th, 2010, http://www.zegreenweb.com/sinformer/nature-voyage/la-russie-s%E2%80%99engage-pour-la-protection-de-labiodiversite,13673 21 16 BIBLIOGRAPHY • BAUDEL.G, La Russie un géant énergétique aux portes de l’Union européenne, octobre 2010.s, Vol.15 n° 1989, p.188-216. 2, • CARRUTHERS Jane, Special Issue on the Politics of conservation in South Africa, Journal of Southern Africa studies, Vol.15 n° 1989, p.188-216. 2, KRAMER Andrew, KRAUS Clifford, Russia shrugs off worries in pursuing Arctic Oil , New York Times. • • La Documentation Française, Environnement et pollution en Russie et en Asie centrale : l’héritage soviétique ; Y a-t-il une politique russe de l’environnement ?, D'après notamment Jean-Robert Raviot, L'écologie aux frontières de la raison d'Etat, Revue d'études comparatives Est-Ouest, mars 2005. • LEVETIN Igor, , Russian Arctic shipping Route safer, may 27th, 2010, http://eyeonthearctic.rcinet.ca/en/news/russia/90-geopolitics/223-russian-arcticshipping-route-saver-minister-igor-levitin • NATO-ASI, Earthquakes Induced By Underground Nuclear Explosions, in NATO-ASI Series, Part 2 “Environment”, Vol4. • PERRIN Gwendal, La Russie s’engage pour la biodiversité, July 8th, 2010, http://www.zegreenweb.com/sinformer/nature-voyage/la-russies%E2%80%99engage-pour-la-protection-de-la-biodiversite,13673 • VANDERCRUYSEN Olivier, La Nouvelle Zemble, carrefour stratégique de l’Arctique russe, 15/04/2010on www.regard-est.com • • • La Russie s’engage pour la biodiversité, in http://www.manimalworld.net Les Russes dans l’Arctique, in http://zebrastationpolaire.over-blog.com Biodiversity Conservation www.biodiversity.ru/eng/about/sponsors.html www.crai.com/ The race of Arctic, Spiegel online international, September 27th, 2010, Center Moscow, • • http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,719740,00.html • Site USGS, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3049/fs2008-3049.pdf. 17