A Brief Overview of U.S. Arctic Policy and the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Project

Brian Van PayOffice of Ocean and Polar Affairs

U.S. Department of State

Arctic Domain Awareness ConferenceNational Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

St. Louis, MissouriMarch 4-5, 2009

Where is the Arctic?

Where is the Arctic Ocean?

All land, submerged lands, and water north of Arctic Circle (66º33’39’’N) U.S. Arctic Research Commission statute includes Bering Sea and a

portion of land area of Alaska below the Arctic Circle Canadian Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act includes all Canadian

land and waters north of 60º N Denmark considers all of Greenland and the Faroe Islands as Arctic Biogregions (tree line, where permafrost begins, etc)

Definition adopted by IHO in 1953.

Neither has a definitive and obvious extent. The United States has an interest in not subscribing to one particular definition for all purposes. Rather each definition serves its own purpose.

International Law in the Arctic

Convention on the Law of the Sea Various IMO agreements Numerous treaties (Stockholm Convention, 1973 Treaty on

the Conservation of Polar Bears, UNFCCC, etc) So-called “soft law” applicable to the Arctic Ocean (IMO

guidelines, Arctic Council Guidelines, etc). All five coastal States (U.S., Russia, Canada, Norway, and

Denmark/Greenland) stated in the Illulissat Declaration that there is no need for a comprehensive Arctic treaty.

U.S. is open to discussing the need for other agreements (e.g. fisheries, SAR).

There are many sources of international law that are applicable to the Arctic Ocean, and, more importantly, available to enhance the security, environmental protection, and safety of navigation of the Arctic Ocean.

Arctic NSPD/HSPD

New policy released January 9, 2009 Extensive interagency discussions, led by State Addresses 7 themes:

National Security and Homeland Security International Governance Extended Continental Shelf and Boundary Issues Promoting International Scientific Cooperation Maritime Transport Economic Issues, including Energy Environmental Protection and Conservation of Natural Resources

Identifies lead agency or agencies for each theme. Written in a manner that it would represent enduring U.S. interests

and could remain as official U.S. policy from one administration to the next.

Arctic Council

Established in 1996. Membership limited to States with land north of the Arctic Circle

and “Permanent Participants” representing indigenous peoples. There are also observer States and organizations.

Only diplomatic forum focused on the entire Arctic. Senior Arctic Officials (SAOs) and permanent participants jointly

coordinate Council operations. Arctic Council Ministers meet every 2 years. Chairmanship

rotates among the member States every 2 years. Work is project-driven and focused on environmental protection

and sustainable development. Military security is excluded. Substantive work takes place mostly in six working groups. Various assessments and reports often result in

recommendations on actions to be taken by member States and organizations.

Challenges Ahead: Climate

Climate change is having a dramatic impact on Arctic ecosystems and Arctic residents.

The science of climate in the Arctic is generally two-pronged: Looking at effects of climate change on the Arctic. Change is happening

faster in the Arctic than in any other region in the world. Science is trying to understand the way in which changes in the Arctic affect

global climate, as well as the way global climate change feeds back into the changes taking place in the Arctic.

The recently-concluded IPY has contributed much to this understanding, and results will continue to be analyzed over the coming years.

The U.S. and others have maintained the proper place for setting climate policy is in the UNFCCC process.

Challenges Ahead: Search and Rescue (SAR)

Tourism is increasing. Concern there are not adequate SAR resources or ships adequately equipped for operating in the harsh environment.

Destinational shipping is expected to increase in the short term and trans-Arctic shipping is expected to increase in the long term.

The U.S. has proposed to the Arctic Council the creation of a special task force on search and rescue in the Arctic that we anticipate will be approved at the April Ministerial.

We expect the task force will assess the current status of: the patchwork of SAR instruments in the region identifying gaps in the existing instruments looking at ways to move forward to enhance

SAR in the Arctic in the face of anticipated use.

Challenges Ahead: ShippingArctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA)

U.S. is a lead country, along with Canada and Finland, on the first ever Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA).

The final assessment is expected to be approved and released at the April 29 Tromsø Ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council.

Comprehensive review of the history, current status, and likely future of shipping in the Arctic.

Includes findings and recommendations that will hopefully inform the policies of Arctic States and others with a stake in Arctic shipping.

Media AttentionExtended Continental Shelf

1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea

“Constitution of the Oceans” maritime zones, freedom of navigation, fishing, marine

scientific research, piracy, marine pollution… Entered into force on November 16, 1994 157 Parties

Three LOS Institutions Established: International Seabed Authority (ISA) International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) Commission on Limits of Continental Shelf (CLCS)

U.S. has not acceded Must go to Senate Foreign Relations Committee

(SFRC) for a vote before it can be sent to Senate floor

Under international law, every coastal State gets a 200-mile shelf automatically.

Some coastal States can claim an extended continental shelf beyond 200 miles IF the shelf meets the criteria under Article 76 of the Law of the Sea Convention

1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea

Article 76: Paragraph 4Formula Lines: Two Options

Sediments

Oceanic crustCrystalline continental crust

Foot of the slope

60nm

100 200 300 4000

nautical miles (nm)

Coast/B

asel

ine

EEZ 200

nm

1% of distance to foot of slope

Paragraph 4: 4(a)ii – FOS + 60M 4(a)i – FOS & sediment thickness

Article 76: Paragraph 5Constraints to the ECS Limit: Two Options

Sediments

Oceanic crustCrystalline continental crust

2,500 m isobath

2,500 m isobath + 100 nm

350 nm

Max

1

Max

2

100 200 300 4000

nautical miles (nm)

Coast/B

asel

ine

EEZ 200

nm

Paragraph 5: Max 1: 350 nm from baselines OR Max 2: 2,500 m isobath plus 100 nm

ECS Data Collection

Bathymetric Data Seismic Data

Baselines(i.e. updated charts)

Other Supporting Data(gravity, magnetic, samples, etc)

Why does it matter?

The U.S., like other countries, has an inherent interest in knowing, and declaring to others, the exact extent of our sovereign rights.

Sovereign rights over the natural resources of seabed and subsoil: mineral resources (manganese nodules, ferromanganese crusts, and polymetallic sulfides,

etc) petroleum (oil, gas, and gas hydrates) “sedentary” species (clams, crabs, scallops, sponges, corals, mollusks, etc)

Defining those rights in concrete geographical terms provides the specificity and certainty necessary to protect, manage, and/or use those resources.

The U.S. Extended Continental ShelfMore than 1 million square kilometers

The United States has an extended continental shelf (ECS) that is more than 1 million square kilometers—an area nearly half of the Louisiana Purchase and with energy and mineral resources that are likely worth many billions.

Defining and establishing the limits of the ECS in concrete geographical terms will enable the U.S. to exercise its sovereign rights over these resources with significantly greater certainty -- whether we choose to use or conserve those resources.

Coast/Baseline 200 nautical miles

Extended Continental Shelf (ECS)Continental Shelf

How to Establish an ECS

Conduct a study with existing data Collect additional data, especially

bathymetric and seismic Analyze data and identify ECS limits

LOS Party Makes submission to CLCS CLCS reviews, makes

recommendations to Coastal State

Limits “final and binding”

LOS Non-Party Can establish outer limits but

doesn’t get benefit of Convention procedures to maximize international recognition and legal certainty

Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS)

A coastal State submits its coordinates, data, and analyses to CLCS.

21 members, all scientists. Elected by State Parties. Executive summary and coordinates are posted on its

public website. No provision for the disclosure of the submission or supporting data.

Subcommission of seven members reviews individual submissions.

No mandate to settle boundary disputes. If the coastal State establishes its ECS limits “on the

basis of” CLCS recommendations, those limits are “final and binding.”

Purpose? International recognition.

Other Countries

About 60 countries have an ECS A majority have begun work to define their shelf 18 of those countries have made a submission in whole or in part:

Russia Brazil Australia Ireland New Zealand “FISU” Joint Submission France (New Caledonia and French Guiana) Ireland Norway Mexico

Bahamas United Kingdom (Ascension Island) Indonesia Japan Seychelles/Mauritius Joint Submission Suriname Burma France (French Antilles and the

Kerguelen Islands )

5 recommendations issued in whole or part: Russia Brazil Australia Ireland New Zealand

Australia’s ECS3,371,990 square km, or 45% of Australia’s land mass

ECS

ECS

EEZ

In April 2007, the Interagency Committee on Ocean Science and Resource Management Integration (ICOSRMI), Co-chaired by the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Council on Environmental Quality, established the Extended Continental Shelf Task Force. The Task Force is chaired by the Department of State with co-vice chairs from the Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Task Force is to coordinate the collection and analysis of relevant data and prepare the necessary documentation to establish the limits of the U.S. continental shelf in accordance with international law.

What has been done so far?

Bathymetric Data Collection (more than 1 million square kilometers from 13 cruises) Arctic Ocean (2003, 2004, 2007, 2008) Gulf of Alaska (2005) Gulf of Mexico (2007) Atlantic Ocean (2004, 2005, 2008) Northern Marina Islands & Guam (2006, 2007) Bering Sea (2003)

Seismic Data Collection (more than 2,700 linear kilometers) Arctic Ocean (2008)

Data Management Developing metadata standards for bathymetric and

seismic data (2008) Developing a long-term data management and

preservation strategy (2008) Planning

Held 4 regional geology workshops with experts from industry and academia.

Northern Mariana Islands

East Coast

Gulf of Mexico

What work is left? Planning

Project Plan, due June 2009 Determine priorities Execute remaining work

Data Collection Additional bathymetric data required (Arctic,

Gulf of Alaska, Continental West Coast, Pacific Islands)

Additional seismic data required (Arctic, Continental East Coast, possibly elsewhere)

Analysis and Compilation Construct a Geographic Information System Apply formula and constraint lines Document legal and scientific approaches

PlanningPlanning Data Data CollectionCollection

Analysis and Analysis and CompilationCompilation

Arctic Data Collection Missions

2003 U.S. bathymetric data collection from Healy (10 days)

2004 U.S. bathymetric data collection from Healy (20 days)

2007 U.S. bathymetric data collection from Healy (30 days) Canadian seismic data collection from Louis S. St.

Laurent with a U.S. Observer onboard (60 days)

2008 U.S. bathymetric data collection from Healy (23 days, Aug

14-Sept 5) Joint U.S. – Canadian seismic (from Louis) and

bathymetric (from Healy) data collection (Joint mission is 26 days, Sept 6-Oct 3, but Canada collected seismic data for ~42 days)

2009 Healy and Louis cooperatively collecting seismic and

bathymetric data in the Arctic for 41 days (Aug 7-Sept 16).

2010 Healy and Louis likely working together again.

Why Cooperate? Mutual interest to define continental shelf

in the Arctic

Saves millions for both countries

It’s Canada and the U.S.—we’re friends. And we also have a long history of scientific collaboration.

Utilize collective, rare expertise, especially given the challenges of the Arctic.

Collect data only once over the same area

Provide data the other needs Canada has a proven multi-channel seismic

system that works in ice-covered conditions The Healy has a multibeam bathymetric

system and can clear a path

Maximizing the Effort (Science)

Dendritic drainage patterns off Northern Mariana Islands

Healy SeamountMystery Grooves Iceberg Scours

Guyots off Northern Mariana Islands, one less than 7 meters from surface

Maximizing the Effort (Science)Dredge Samples

Common Misconceptions

The following are not accurate: A State claims an extended continental shelf. The CLCS approves a State’s continental shelf. The CLCS is part of the United Nations. Defining an ECS is an Arctic-only endeavor. The U.S. does not have ECS unless we accede

to the Convention. Climate change is the stimulus for defining an

ECS in the Arctic. This is a race for resources. Russia is taking U.S. ECS. Maritime boundaries in the Arctic are different.

Brian Van PayOffice of Ocean and Polar Affairs

U.S. Department of Statevanpaybj@state.gov

202-647-5123

Julie GourleySenior Arctic Officialgourleyjl@state.gov

202-647-3264

Questions?Questions?