22:51 — REGNUM Countries with the Arctic vector of development are preparing a new agreement that may not become relevant: it prohibits unregulated fishing in the central regions of the Arctic Ocean. Five Arctic countries are working on the document - the United States, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia - as well as the Republic of Korea, Japan, China, Iceland and the European Union.

The parties to the agreement are not entirely sure that fishing in the high-latitude Arctic - covered in ice, despite climate change - will one day become a reality. However, calling it an anticipation of future disagreements, they started talking about fishing at the North Pole in our days.

“According to the agreement, commercial fishing will not begin until it is confirmed that this does not pose a threat to stocks, including in the zones of the subarctic states, and until regulatory measures are established , - said in an interview with TASS the head of the Russian delegation, deputy head of the Federal Agency for Fisheries Vasily Sokolov. — This is the prevention of unregulated fishing. Not “illegal”, because there are no rules in this area yet, but unregulated.”

Russian interest

The draft agreement was being prepared for two years. As reported IA REGNUM, in July 2015 in Oslo five coastal countries (Russia, USA, Norway, Canada and Denmark) signed the Declaration on the Prevention of Unregulated Fishing in the High Seas Area. The Arctic states have vowed to fish in the region until the scientific community has a clear and reliable idea of ​​the resource potential of the Arctic waters. However, now this potential is practically absent: there is nothing to catch in the central part of the Arctic Ocean, scientists only note the likelihood of enrichment of the thawed Arctic with fish in the future. But despite this, America insisted on the early conclusion of a binding international treaty.

Mikkalai (Russian version: Savin A. S.)

Work on the document is being carried out in the so-called “5 + 5” format: five more Arctic Council observers have joined the Arctic states: South Korea, China, Japan, the European Union and Iceland. Russia, as the owner of the largest Arctic economic zone, has repeatedly stated that the coastal states should have priority in making decisions within the framework of the agreement. The Federal Agency for Fisheries has repeatedly emphasized that the reserves in the central part of the Arctic will not appear from anywhere, but from the exclusive economic zones of coastal countries, which, it turns out, are already taking care of preserving these resources.

It is worth saying that Russia had quite a few reasons for dissatisfaction with the previous versions of the project, there was even a question of a premature withdrawal from the agreement. But the fear of losing the (so far illusory) benefit forced the Russian side to continue negotiations, as a result, almost all claims were eliminated.

As the main decision-making principle, the Russian side proposed either the consensus of all ten countries, or five Arctic countries with its own blocking vote. During the last meeting, the creators of the draft agreement agreed on the first option - a democratic consensus of ten signatory states.

“Because there were fears that any country or countries would block decisions, for example, to start fishing, a proposal was put forward to introduce a limited duration of the agreement - said Vasily Sokolov. — Opinions are quite divided. A number of states insist on a short period of 10 years. Others, primarily the United States and Canada, believe that it should be at least 30 years old. Russia proposed a 16-year term, and this option was approved.”

Will the fish come to the North?

The initiative to conclude an international agreement delighted environmental organizations. “We welcome this agreement as the first step towards the creation[in the Arctic] a full-fledged territory with international protection status, and we call for another agreement in 16 years on an already indefinite ban on both commercial fishing and mining activities., - said John Burgwald, regional branch expert Greenpeace Nordic.

But, to be precise, environmental organizations are celebrating a victory, which, by and large, does not exist: no one knows what will happen to the Arctic ice in 16 years, but if the fish go to the North Pole en masse, then the agreement will be revised. According to the Deputy Chairman of the Federal Agency for Fisheries, “either measures will be developed within the framework of the agreement, or some fishery organization will begin to regulate”.

For all countries participating in the agreement, fishing is an important part of the economy. IA REGNUM earlier that a tenth of Iceland's economy is directly linked to fishing, a figure that rises to nearly 20% when fisheries are taken into account. By the way, Iceland is already benefiting from climate change: valuable fish species have begun to appear in its waters, which were previously afraid of too cold water. First of all, we are talking about mackerel, which until 2000 was a rare species for Iceland, but today is one of the country's most commercially important fish. In 2016, mackerel became the third most harvested fish in Iceland, earning the country $103 million from its sale.

Vyacheslav ZILANOV, Chairman of the Sevryba Coordinating Council

On February 24-46, Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, hosts a meeting of five subarctic states on the problems of fisheries in the central part of the Arctic Ocean. Why such a sudden focus on fisheries in the Arctic? And what exactly is Arctic fishing?

The Arctic is a broad concept. Today, most researchers and politicians consider the Arctic Circle to be the southern boundary of the Arctic. There are five states in this area, whose 200-mile exclusive economic zone goes directly to the Arctic seas and the Arctic Ocean. These are Norway, Denmark, Canada, USA and Russia.

However, outside the 200-mile economic zones in the central part of the Arctic Ocean, an open area has formed, or, as you can say by analogy with the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bOkhotsk, Bering or Barents Seas, a huge enclave. It is the largest enclave in the world, surrounded by the economic zones of five states. Its area is 2.8 million square meters. km, for comparison - these are two areas of the Barents Sea.

Fishing in the Arctic Ocean and adjacent seas is intensively carried out only in the Northwestern Arctic - in the Barents, Greenland Seas and the northern part of the Norwegian Sea. The volume of catch of all subarctic states in these areas is about 1.5 million tons, of which 1 million tons is mastered by the Russian fishing fleet based in the Northern Basin and partly in Kaliningrad.

It would seem that there are no reasons to worry about the near future of the open part of the Arctic waters. But according to scientists, as a result of warming in the Arctic, the central part of the Arctic Ocean is freed from ice by almost 40%. Due to the warming in the Barents Sea, intensive migrations of most commercial fish in the north and northeast direction are observed. For example, studies by the Polar Research Institute have shown that halibut, one of the desired objects of fishing, has already reached the northern part of Novaya Zemlya, and in the north of Svalbard it has long been caught by fishermen. Cod and other types of marine fish migrate in a similar way.

In addition, species of arctic origin inhabit this zone. This is polar cod, or, as it is called, polar cod, and to a certain extent capelin. There is reason to believe that in the areas of the central part of the Arctic Ocean that have been freed from ice, a number of states that do not border the Arctic seas may begin research and fisheries. Such intentions are of concern to the five littoral powers, since fish stocks are transboundary. In this regard, it is necessary in advance, before the start of unregulated fishing in the Arctic, to develop a mechanism of agreements or an agreement that would regulate stock management and prevent uncontrolled fishing. And the meeting in Nuuk is one of the stages in the development of this agreement.

At one time, the fishermen of the Northern Basin spoke in favor of such an agreement being developed and signed as soon as possible by all five countries of the Arctic region. It should be based on extensive scientific research of all the Arctic states under a single program with common funding. Only on the basis of scientific data will it be possible to make a decision on the expediency or prohibition of fishing in polar waters.

It should be taken into account that the 200-mile economic zones of the near-actic states are also being cleared of ice. This is especially true for Russia, because we have the largest EEZ in the Arctic, which covers the Barents, Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, and Chukchi Seas. Regular fishing, as I said, is carried out only in the Barents Sea, but we have not conducted extensive research in other areas.

Therefore, the task of updating the research fleet, in particular PINRO and the Far Eastern institutes, is now coming to the fore in order to develop a unified program for studying the composition of the ichthyofauna in these seas. It is possible that commercial reserves will be discovered there, which can become an additional source of raw materials for the Russian fishing fleet. Of course, these should be comprehensive studies that would cover not only the identification of raw materials, but also their rational use, as well as the production of products from them that would be in high demand, primarily in the domestic market.

In my opinion, the leadership of the Federal Agency for Fishery and other organizations that work in the Arctic, in particular the Russian Geographical Society, needs to pay as much attention to these issues as possible so that we are at the forefront here. According to some reports, a number of states, starting with Norway, are now building an ice-class research fleet designed for use precisely in Arctic waters. So, we have a difficult dialogue ahead of us on the Arctic and a serious challenge to our Arctic fisheries, but without a large-scale renewal of Russia's scientific potential, it will be very difficult to adequately respond to it.

Vyacheslav Zilanov, Chairman of the Coordinating Council of Associations, Associations and Enterprises of the Fishing Industry of the Northern Basin (CS "Sevryba")

Kamil Bekyashev, Honored Scientist, Doctor of Law, Professor, Head of the Department of Moscow State Law Academy named after I.I. O.E. Kutafin, Vice-President of the International Maritime Law Association.

Fishery importance of the Arctic seas for Russia

The Arctic seas of the Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, Chukchi, Beaufort and Baffin Seas are not yet of great importance for the Russian fish industry. In 2011, Russian fishermen caught more than 40,000 tons of cod, haddock, polar cod, and sturgeon in the Arctic seas. These species were caught in the mouths of the Yenisei, Lena, Ob, in the Kara Sea and the Laptev Sea 1 .

There are no international agreements of the Russian Federation on the regulation of fishing in the Arctic seas. Russia is a member of the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), which regulates fishing in a small part of the Arctic Ocean (8% of the total area of ​​the Arctic Ocean).

The Arctic is one of the most vulnerable regions in the world. When we talk about a 2 degree rise in global average temperature, that means 5 degrees for the Arctic and up to 10 degrees in some places. animals will die. On the other hand, a significant area of ​​the water surface will be formed, in which valuable species of commercial fish will live.

In particular, the central part of the Arctic Ocean is currently clearly defined, located outside the exclusive economic zones of the five Arctic states: Russia, the USA, Canada, Norway and Denmark (in relation to Greenland), which is, from the point of view of international maritime law, the open sea, with the ensuing consequences. The area of ​​this region is approximately 2.8 million km2, which is equal to the area of ​​the Mediterranean Sea.

As E.A. Shamray, ten years ago the cod fishery practically ended at 78 degrees north latitude. But over the past few years, its border has moved far beyond Svalbard. For example, in recent years in August, cod, halibut and capelin are distributed up to 82 degrees north latitude, possibly further north. At one time, even expeditions of polar explorers did not reach this area for 400 kilometers. And now you can fish there. This means that part of the fish stocks that traditionally lived in the exclusive economic zones of Russia and Norway are becoming available to other countries 2 .

A number of Norwegian scientists believe that capelin, herring and sea bass may migrate to the Arctic Ocean in search of food, since these are pelagic species that move freely in the water column. If fish migrate to international waters, they argue, the situation changes, as new international players who do not have access to similar resources elsewhere 3 may become interested in them.

Ichthyologists believe that only species that freely move in the Arctic water masses throughout their entire life or some part of it, such as capelin and sea bass 4, can freely migrate to the Arctic Ocean proper.

Due to heavy ice conditions, the Arctic Ocean is one of the least explored sea areas. Today, when during the summer period its surface is largely freed from ice, it becomes easier to study its physical, chemical and biological conditions. The species composition of phyto- and zooplankton is of critical importance for the migration of pelagic species; therefore, studying its changes will facilitate the task of fixing possible feeding migration to this area.

Fishing policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic

The Arctic is a region of geopolitical interests of the Russian Federation. The natural resource and economic potential of this region play an important role in the development of the national economy and the sustainable development of the regions of the Russian Federation located in this zone.

The Arctic zone of the Russian Federation was determined by the decision of the State Commission under the Council of Ministers of the USSR for Arctic Affairs dated April 22, 1989. In particular, the Arctic zone includes lands and islands located in the Russian sector of the Arctic, as well as internal sea waters, the territorial sea, the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation.

The legal regime for the use of living marine resources of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation is defined in federal laws: on the exclusive economic zone of 1998, on internal sea waters, the territorial sea and the adjacent zone of 1998, on the continental shelf of 1995. The main principles of the Arctic policy in the field of fisheries designated: in the Maritime Doctrine of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2020 5 , Fundamentals of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic for the period up to 2020 and beyond 6 , Strategy for the development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation and ensuring national security for the period up to 2020 7 .

All these documents have been approved by the Presidents of the Russian Federation, which underlines their importance in solving the problems of ensuring the presence of the Russian Federation in this strategically important area.

The Maritime Doctrine of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2020 contains the section "Arctic Regional Direction". The basis of the national maritime policy in this area is the creation of conditions for the activities of the Russian fleet (including the fishing fleet) in the Barents, White and Arctic seas. The doctrine is designed to solve a long-term problem related to the exploration and use of the Arctic with a focus on the development of export sectors of the economy, the creation of fishing, research and other specialized fleets.

The Fundamentals of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic for the period up to 2020 and beyond have declared the development of the resource base of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation through the use of advanced technologies among the strategic priorities. The Fundamentals provide for the development of aquatic biological resources in arctic conditions, including in ice-covered areas.

The strategy for the development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation and ensuring national security for the period up to 2020 is aimed at realizing the sovereignty and national interests of the Russian Federation in the Arctic, including in the field of fisheries. In particular, measures are envisaged for the conservation and development of the resource potential of the fishery and the implementation of measures for the technical re-equipment and commissioning of new capacities for the deep processing of aquatic biological resources and the development of marine biotechnologies, as well as the efficiency of the use of the main commercial species of aquatic biological resources and the involvement in fishing of new objects. Let us especially note the provision of the Strategy, which provides for measures to prevent and suppress illegal extraction and trafficking of aquatic biological resources.

The strategy is supposed to be implemented in two stages, and both stages provide for measures aimed at the rational use of resources and the preservation of the natural environment of the Arctic zone, based on its systematic comprehensive scientific research.

Legislation and documents on Russia's strategy in the Arctic zone do not address the issues of harvesting aquatic biological resources in the enclave of the Arctic Ocean. Without a doubt, this gap in Russia's Arctic policy will soon be eliminated.

On the need for international legal management of fisheries in the enclave of the Arctic Ocean

A number of foreign (S. Heiliman, T. Taylor - Canada) and Russian (I. Melenchuk, V.K. Zilanov) 8 scientists believe that unregulated fishing in the central part of the Arctic Ocean can lead to a large load on the ecosystem. The removal of fish that is a prey item or some other component of the ecosystem may have an impact on other groups of species: marine mammals and birds. In the absence of the necessary scientific knowledge and monitoring, even a relatively small commercial fishery can lead to unintentional overfishing of harvested species and undermine the economic integrity of the ecosystem. This circumstance can have important negative consequences for the population of the Arctic, its indigenous inhabitants, who need various marine biological resources to meet their vital needs: fish, marine mammals and sea birds.

According to scientists, unregulated fishing in the central part of the Arctic Basin may also create a difficult political situation. In the interests of the coastal Arctic states, especially Canada, Russia and the United States, the countries located closest to new potential areas, it is essential to limit (and possibly prohibit) fishing by expeditionary fishing vessels of various states in the central part of the Arctic Ocean. For these purposes, the above authors propose to develop and conclude an international agreement. In their opinion, the main blocks of such an agreement could be: the initial preservation of the status quo and the cessation of fishing in the Arctic Ocean outside the national jurisdictions of the five coastal Arctic states; establishment of a research and monitoring program; the agreed opening of fisheries in the future, if the participating countries agree that all provisions on scientific research, management and control are implemented and sustainable fishing can be ensured.

The situation developing in the central part of the Arctic Ocean is the subject of discussion by international organizations, conferences and teams of scientists.

The foundations for international cooperation in the Arctic are laid down in the Ilulissat Declaration, adopted on May 29, 2008. It notes that the five Arctic littoral countries should play a leading role in protecting the marine environment and its resources. These countries should cooperate closely with each other and other interested countries. Cooperation includes the collection of scientific data on the continental shelf, the conservation of the marine environment and its living resources, and other scientific topics.

The Arctic Council, established on September 19, 1996, is called upon to review and coordinate programs for monitoring and assessment, the conservation of Arctic flora and fauna, and the protection of the marine environment of the Arctic. Many declarations adopted within the framework of the Arctic Council, in particular, Ottawa (1996), Barrov (2000), Inari (2002), Reykjavik (2004), Salekhard (2006) are relevant to the problem under consideration. ), Tromso (2009), Nuuk (2011).

On March 29, 2010, in Chelsea, a suburb of Ottawa, the second ministerial meeting of the Arctic coastal states took place: Denmark, Canada, Norway, Russia and the USA. The meeting discussed the situation in the Arctic Ocean and in the Arctic as a whole in the light of new opportunities and new challenges arising from climate change and the development of technology. When discussing the development of the natural resources of the Arctic Ocean, emphasis was placed on the need to maintain a balance between economic and environmental interests, as well as to avoid limiting the natural competitive advantages of states under artificial pretexts. Although large-scale commercial fishing in the Arctic Ocean is not a matter of the near future, the negotiators discussed the need for further scientific study of the condition and nature of fish stocks and their ecosystems in order to assess emerging trends and their implications. “There is already an exemplary and comprehensive legal framework relating to the Arctic Ocean, and the Arctic coastal states have a unique interest and role to play in current and future efforts to conserve and manage fish stocks in the region,” summed up by the participants.

A new future for the Russian Arctic

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is implementing a comprehensive project called A New Future for the Russian Arctic, which consists of five areas.

The first direction is information work, publication of publications, work with the media and the public. Its goal is to show that the Arctic needs help, which requires both adaptation to new conditions and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions throughout the planet. Without a sharp reduction in emissions by mid-century, the Arctic will have a very hard time.

The goal of the second direction is to minimize the negative impact of shipping in the Arctic. It is expected that the intensity of navigation in the seas of the Russian Arctic will increase due to the melting of ice, and it is necessary to take legal measures to prevent and prevent the negative impact of these processes. The main areas of activity will be to promote the development and adoption of a federal law on the prevention of oil pollution of the seas of the Russian Federation, as well as the adoption of special measures for shipping in the Arctic by the International Maritime Organization. In addition, it is important that the requirements of Russian legislation comply with these measures.

The third direction is the elimination of threats caused by oil and gas production, both today and in the future, which can threaten the Arctic if it is thoughtlessly “used”.

The fourth direction is fishing in the Arctic seas. These are especially fragile ecosystems, and they should be treated differently. The Russian Arctic, including the Barents and Bering Seas, is the most important area for domestic and global fisheries. Here lives one of the last remaining large stocks of the Barents Sea cod and the most numerous species of cod - walleye pollock. In addition to pollock, other types of fish are also well known to buyers: haddock, pollock, saffron cod, blue whiting and polar cod.

The main activity is the implementation of the principles of responsible fishing, aimed at the long-term preservation of healthy and productive marine ecosystems.

And the fifth - the largest area of ​​activity - care for specially protected natural areas: the creation and support of a system of specially protected natural areas; conservation of rare and endangered species; ecological education and enlightenment of the population.

The most active state advocating the creation of an international legal regime for fisheries in the enclave of the Arctic Ocean is the United States of America.

US Arctic Policy

The Arctic policy of the United States as a whole and in relation to the enclave of the Arctic Ocean is defined in Law No. 110-243 "Joint Resolution on giving instructions by the United States of America to initiate discussions at the international level and take measures together with other states aimed at preparing an international treaty on the management of stocks migratory fish and straddling fish stocks in the Arctic Ocean”, which was adopted by Congress at its 110th session on June 3, 2008. 9

The title of this law reflects its purpose: the initiation of US discussions at the international level and the adoption, together with relevant authorities, of measures aimed at preparing an international treaty on the management of migratory fish stocks and straddling fish stocks in the Arctic Ocean.

The law notes that the decline in some commercially valuable fish stocks indicates the need for States to take action to conserve fish stocks and develop management mechanisms to ensure sustainable fisheries.

The law draws attention to the fact that a global change in the climate regime can lead to an increase in water temperatures and, as a result, the emergence of new sustainable habitats in areas where climatic conditions were previously too harsh for the survival of certain fish species, for example, in the Arctic Ocean.

As noted in paragraph 7 of this law, in the future, the expansion of habitats and migration of fish resources within the Arctic Ocean, as well as the availability of opportunities for ships to stay and navigate in the Arctic Ocean, may lead to favorable conditions for the start and development in this region commercial fishing.

Paragraph 5 of the law states that there are facts of commercial fishing in some regions of the Arctic Ocean, including the Barents Sea, the Kara Sea, the Beaufort Sea, the Chukchi Sea and the Greenland Sea, and given the limited data available to scientists regarding current and estimated density fish populations, as well as the distribution of their habitats in the Arctic Ocean region, it is necessary to establish an international regulation regime.

The law states that the indigenous national minorities of various states living on the coast of the Arctic Ocean are engaged in fishing in a limited and small amount, and in order to survive, they must be given access to this fishery and ensure its sustainability.

The law further states that the management of fisheries in order to achieve its sustainability requires the implementation of all types of fisheries, taking into account established and scientifically based catch limits, periodic reporting of the results of the catch, the existence of an equitable system for the provision of access and distribution, as well as an effective monitoring system and the possibility of enforcing fulfillment of obligations.

The United States believes that migratory fish stocks move across national borders and the boundaries of the exclusive economic zones of states engaged in fishing, as well as on the high seas, as a result of which sustainable fisheries for these species require the establishment of a management system based on international coordination and cooperation. .

In relation to the Arctic Ocean enclave, Law No. 110-243 of June 3, 2008 states the following:

- in the future, commercial fishing in the Arctic Ocean and actions to manage it should be carried out within the framework of an international program provided for by international treaties or developed by regional fisheries management organizations. This program should be developed before the moment when commercial fishing is widespread in the high seas;

- The United States should initiate at the international level the discussion and adoption, together with other Arctic states, of steps to agree on an agreement or agreements on the management of migratory fish stocks and transboundary fish stocks of the Arctic Ocean, as well as on the creation of a new international organization or organizations to manage fisheries in the specified region;

– the agreement or agreements must comply with the requirements of the 1995 UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Stocks of Highly Migratory Species and contain, among other things, mechanisms for determining catch and by-catch limits, allocation of fishing area (sites), mechanisms for observation, monitoring, data collection, reporting , the possibility of enforcement to fulfill obligations, as well as other elements necessary to ensure the maintenance of fish stocks in the Arctic Ocean;

- pending the entry into force of the treaty or treaties and the implementation of measures consistent with the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement, the United States is obliged to support the efforts made by the international community to prevent the spread of commercial fishing in the open part of the Arctic Ocean.

Thus, the official position of the United States on the issue of international legal management of fisheries in the Arctic Ocean enclave is as follows:

1) climate change and rapid ice melting can lead to changes in the conditions and habitats of fish;

2) access to the indigenous population to any fishing area in the Arctic Ocean must be ensured;

3) fisheries management in the Arctic Ocean requires the development and conclusion of an international treaty and the creation of a new international fisheries management organization;

4) The United States legislated approved the main provisions of the international treaty on fisheries in the central part of the Arctic Ocean;

5) before the entry into force of an international treaty, a moratorium on the harvesting of biological resources in the open part of the Arctic Ocean should be established.

As recent events have shown, the United States clearly adheres to the provisions of Law No. 110-243 of June 3, 2008 in negotiations.

The problem of international legal management of fisheries in the central part of the Arctic Ocean has been discussed for a number of years at the sessions of the Russian-American Intergovernmental Advisory Committee on Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as the IAC). Thus, at the 22nd session in September 2011, the American side noted that, despite the fact that there is no fishing in the central part of the Arctic Ocean yet, warming in this region is happening faster than in other parts of the planet, which suggests that that the distribution of some commercial fish species to more northern areas will increase. The US points out that there is no international agreement to regulate fisheries in the open Arctic Ocean and fishing vessels may start fishing in this area in the absence of an appropriate management system. The United States would like to avoid the situation that developed in the Soviet era in the central part of the Arctic Ocean.

The US and Russia have common interests in the area. In accordance with this, the United States proposed, together with Russia, to develop a draft agreement and submit it to the other three coastal states for discussion. The adoption of such a multilateral agreement would prevent unregulated fishing by third countries. The agreement, developed by coastal states, will encourage states outside the region that could potentially fish in the central part of this ocean, such as the Republic of Korea, Japan, the PRC, as well as the EU, to join it. The agreement will provide for the responsibility of the participating countries for unauthorized fishing 10 .

At the 23rd session of the IWC in 2012, the parties discussed the draft agreement proposed by the United States. The United States recalled that the purpose of the agreement is to avoid a repetition of the situation in which both sides found themselves in connection with the collapse of pollock stocks in the Aleutian Basin of the central Bering Sea. For this reason, the US has proposed postponing commercial fishing in the open Arctic Ocean until there is an appropriate scientific understanding of how to fish there, and until a multilateral mechanism for such management is established, the US has proposed joint research in this area.

Russia's position

The Russian delegation stated that it attaches great importance to the issue of regulating fisheries in the open part of the Arctic Ocean and shares the desire of the American side to avoid the situation of uncontrolled commercial fishing in this area by third (non-Arctic) states. However, at this stage, due to a number of considerations, the Russian side cannot fully support the American project and become its co-author.

At this session, it was announced that a detailed commentary by the Russian side on the US proposals would be presented later.

The Russian side supported the proposal of the American side to convene a meeting of representatives of the five subarctic states to discuss issues of managing the living marine resources of the Arctic and is ready to take an active part in such a meeting 11 .

Scientists in many countries are concerned about the current situation regarding the management of the resources of the Arctic Ocean. There has been a distinct vacuum in the international legal status of the Arctic Ocean.

More than 2,000 scientists from 67 countries have sent an open letter to the international community demanding that the Arctic Ocean be protected by banning commercial fishing until research and regulation guarantee the conservation of this fragile natural ecosystem.

The scientists recommend: a) reaching an agreement on a precautionary approach to fisheries management in the open regions of the Arctic; b) start with a zero level of production and stick to it until the necessary studies have been carried out to assess the impact of fishing on the ecosystem of the central Arctic Ocean; c) establish a sound management, monitoring and enforcement system before fishing commences.

Ice melt, which reached record levels in 2007-2011, whetted the appetites of not only gas and oil producers, but also fishing companies, attracted by the prospect of pristine natural resources and the absence of international regulation in the Arctic. "The scientific community does not currently have sufficient biological data to assess the presence, abundance, structure, movement and condition of fish stocks and their role in the extended ecosystem of the Arctic Ocean," the scientists write in this letter.

The authors of the appeal call for a moratorium on commercial fishing in the region until the impact of fishing on the local ecosystem and the population whose existence depends on these resources is analyzed. They also demand that the governments of the five Arctic countries - Canada, Denmark, the United States, Norway and Russia - develop an international agreement based on the results of scientific research and the principle of caution.

So far, the true volumes of fish resources in the region are unknown. But as Louis Fortier, scientific director of Arctic Net, a research program at Laval University in Quebec City, points out, with the gradual disappearance of ice, the biological productivity of ecosystems will increase, leading to an increase in fish populations, especially in the northern Bering Strait and eastern Barents Sea. “There is a danger that overfishing practices, which have led to the overexploitation of some large species and caused imbalances in marine ecosystems, are being transferred to the Arctic,” Fortier said. “In the case of the North Pole, the situation will be even more devastating, as local fish resources increase slowly: low temperatures make reproduction difficult.”

According to A.I. Glubokov and M.K. Glubokovsky, due to climate warming, a number of areas of the Arctic Ocean, located outside the exclusive economic zones of coastal countries, began to be freed from ice in the summer, including such areas appeared beyond the zones of the USA, Canada and Russia in the waters of the western part of the American coast. Climate warming caused the distribution of commercial quantities of some hydrobionts to the Chukchi, Kara and other seas, in which fishing was not previously developed. Warming also causes an increase in the biomass of some valuable commercial fish stocks, such as cod. This, in turn, intensifies competition for access to Arctic aquatic bioresources both within the framework of multilateral and bilateral agreements. All these natural phenomena, indicate A.I. Glubokov and M.K. Glubokovsky, put on the agenda several issues, namely: a) international regulation of fishing in the Arctic seas, in which fishing was not carried out before; b) on the result of the mechanism of international regulation of fisheries activities in the high seas of the Arctic Ocean; c) on the admission of third (non-Arctic) countries to fishing outside the exclusive economic zones of the Arctic states 12 .

To date, we are aware of one draft of such an international legal instrument. In particular, the US Department of State in October 2011 circulated a draft Agreement on High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean. This project consists of 9 articles.

The purpose of the Agreement is to ensure that small-scale fisheries on the high seas in the central Arctic Ocean are conducted only in accordance with the principles of one or more regional or sub-regional organizations or arrangements that may be created or established for specific purposes to manage such fisheries in accordance with modern international standards. .

Article 4 of the draft contains a list of obligations of the parties. The Parties to the Agreement will authorize their fishing vessels to fish in the Agreement area and only in accordance with the principles of one or more regional organizations or arrangements that may be created or established for the specific purposes of managing such fisheries.

The Parties shall establish a joint scientific research program to improve their understanding of the ecosystem of the area of ​​application of the Agreement and, in particular, to determine the possibility of existing or future fish stocks in the Agreement area that could be taken on a sustainable basis by industrial fishing, as well as the possible impact of such fishing on the ecosystem.

The main one is Art. 5 of the project, which is supposed to determine the conditions for the participation of third countries in fisheries in the central part of the Arctic Ocean.

The parties to the Agreement will encourage countries to take action against their ships to comply with the requirements of the Agreement.

Parties to the Agreement must take measures consistent with international law to prevent ships entitled to fly the flags of third countries not party to the Agreement from engaging in activities that would undermine the effective implementation of the provisions of the Agreement.

Freedom of the high seas

According to its legal status, the central part of the Arctic Ocean is an open sea, and, therefore, fisheries management in it should be carried out on the basis of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter referred to as the 1982 Convention) and other international legal acts. According to Art. 87 of the 1982 Convention, the high seas are open to all states, both coastal and landlocked. However, the freedom of the high seas, including the freedom of fishing, is exercised in accordance with the conditions determined by this Convention and other norms of international law. These norms should be enshrined in a special convention, which can be conditionally called the "Convention for the Conservation of Living Marine Resources of the Central Arctic Ocean."

In our opinion, the following provisions could be the key provisions of this Convention.

1. All States, both coastal and non-coastal, are required to refrain from any activity relating to the commercial harvesting of living marine resources until such time as the Commission (see below) has made a recommendation on the basis of scientific research on the possibilities of fishing in specific areas of the central parts of the Arctic Ocean.
2. All states cooperate with each other in the conservation and management of living resources in the central Arctic Ocean and are required to be parties to the Convention.
3. All States must conduct or take part in marine scientific research in the specified area and submit the results of such research to the Commission for analysis and publication.
4. The States Parties to the Convention establish a Commission for the Conservation and Management of the Living Marine Resources of the Open Part of the Arctic Ocean and the Coordination of Marine Scientific Research. All decisions of the Commission are taken in substance by consensus.
5. Only States Parties to the Convention will have future rights to access fishery resources.
6. The commission will:

— agree on standards for collecting, reporting, verifying data on living marine resources;

— Encourage scientific assessment of reserves;

— A collaborative mechanism for effective monitoring, control, supervision and enforcement;

- to ensure the comprehensive cooperation of states, national institutions and enterprises in the study of the marine environment and its living marine resources.

1. In determining the nature and extent of participation for new members of the Commission or their participation in the Convention, account shall be taken, in particular, of the respective interests of such States in the conservation of living marine resources; the appropriate contribution of new and existing members or participants to the conservation and management of stocks, as well as their study, assessment and monitoring; the needs of coastal states whose economy is largely dependent on the exploitation of living marine resources; the needs of coastal fishing communities (companies), which depend primarily on the fishery of the respective stocks.
2. States which, for whatever reason, are not members of the Commission or Parties to the Convention, and which do not give their consent to be so, are not relieved of the obligation to cooperate with the Commission and other States in the conservation of relevant resources and in the pursuit of scientific research.

Such a State is under an obligation not to permit vessels flying its flag to engage in industrial fishing and to strictly comply with the conservation and management measures imposed by the Commission.

conclusions

I think it is quite possible to join the opinion of S. Heiliman (USA) that the subarctic states should take on the role of leaders in solving complex problems related to fish resources in the central Arctic. Resolving this potential contentious issue before it becomes a conflict over resources will allow the Arctic states to implement the necessary conservation measures for the Arctic Ocean in the face of climate change. And S. Heiliman is absolutely right in saying that “if the Arctic states do not take on this leading role, then other interested parties, such as the European Union and non-coastal states, will fill the vacuum” 13 .

1. See more: Russian Arctic: on the verge of disaster. M., 1996, p. 93-101.
2. See: Mikhailov A. In the sea without rules. Fishing in the areas freed from the Arctic ice still has no legal and scientific justification//Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 2013, January 23.
3. See: Loang H., Yoseter H., Ingvaldsen R. The Arctic - without fishing? // mvestnik.ru., 03/14/2013.
4. See: ibid., p. 2.
5. See: www.kremlin.ru
6. See: Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 2009, March 27.
7. See: www.goverment.ru
8. See: Highliman S., Taylor T. International agreement on the conservation and management of fisheries in the central part of the Arctic Ocean// Rybnye resursov, 2011, no. 2, p. 14-17; Zilanov V.K. New challenges to the Arctic fisheries. On Sat. "International cooperation in the field of environmental protection, conservation and rational management of biological resources in the Arctic Ocean". M., 2012, p. 44-45.
9. http:/beta.congress/gov/bill/110th congress/senate-joint-resolotion/17/text
10. See: Minutes of the 22nd session of the Russian-American Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) on fisheries, September 5-9, 2011, p. 4 (the material is in the archive of the UMS of the Federal Agency for Fishery).
11. See: Minutes of the 23rd Session of the Russian-American Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) on Fisheries, September 5-9, 2012, p. 7 (the material is in the archive of the UMS of the Federal Agency for Fishery).
12. See for more details: Glubokov A.I., Glubokovsky M.K. International legal regulation of fishing in the Arctic seas. In: The Arctic: a zone of peace and cooperation. M., 2011, p.103.
13. Highliman S. Prevention of unregulated fishing in the high seas region of the central Arctic Ocean. In: "International cooperation in the field of environmental protection, conservation and rational management of biological resources in the Arctic Ocean". M., 2012, p. 37.

The main focus of fishing in the Arctic is our Barents Sea. Fisheries on Murman have existed for many centuries, and even seven hundred years ago Novgorodians and Norwegians fished here.

In the last years before the imperialist war, the Russian capitalists fished up to 30,000 tons of different kinds of fish a year in the northern seas. Norwegian fishermen caught at least 600 thousand tons of different fish annually in the Barents Sea, i.e. twenty times more than Russians.

The most fished in the Barents Sea are cod, haddock and saithe. These fish range in weight from 2 to 20 kg. Cod is caught by Pomor industrialists either in a “line” or in a “hook”.

A tier is a long line (rope), from 5 to 10 km, into which, every two meters, short “ends” of a thin twine, the so-called “orostyagi”, are “splashed”, with fish hooks on which “bait” is planted - small fish serving as bait for cod.

The longline is “swept out” into the sea and anchored at a depth of two hundred or more meters. The ends of the tier are supported on the surface of the water on wooden buoys-floats. The tier is usually kept in the water for six hours, and then they begin to “pick” it into the boat, gradually removing the caught fish from the hooks.

Line fishing.

For one catch, sometimes up to 10 tons of fish are removed from the line. Working with a longline is very tiring and difficult. The fisherman has to “sweep” into the sea a longline several kilometers long, on which there are up to ten thousand hooks. It is necessary to "sweep" the tier so that the hooks do not touch each other and so that each of the "orostyazh" hangs separately in the water. And this work must be done at a time when the boat is being tossed by waves every second.

But it is even more difficult to take the longline out of the water. The wet longline slips in the hands, the hands go numb from the cold wind, and at the same time one has to remove the fish from the hooks and carefully fold the “line” to the bottom of the boat so that it does not get mixed up.

In addition to fishing with a “line”, cod is also “hunted” for “hooking”. This method of fishing is carried out as follows: a fisherman, sitting in a boat, lowers (“poisons”) a long string with a load into the water. A hook is planted at the ends of the twine, and a “bait” is suspended not far from it - a shiny metal plate. From time to time, the fisherman quickly pulls the string up and, if he feels that a fish has hit the hook, he pulls the prey into the boat. When fishing by “hooking”, a fish, seeing a shiny plate in the water, takes it for a small fish, rushes after it and touches the hook, which bites into its side or other place.

Of course, hook-and-line fishing is an obsolete way of fishing, and it is more or less suitable where fish is found in abundance. In addition, hook-and-line fishing is a predatory method. With this method of fishing, many fish are maimed by hooks, wounded fish go into the sea and die.

Currently, fish are caught mainly with the help of trawls. "Trawl" fishing is that trawler(a specially adapted steam vessel) releases a special floating seine - a trawl - astern into the sea. The trawl looks like a big bag tied on a thick rope. The trawl drags along the seabed following the slowly moving steamer. When it is noticed from the steamer that the trawl tug is very tight, the trawler is stopped, the trawl is pulled up to the side and lifted out of the water onto the deck. Then they open the “motnya”, the back of the trawl, and dump the fish and everything that got into it from the trawl.

If the cells in the trawl net are small, then the trawling should be considered predatory, because the “fry” is also caught in the net along with full-sized (adult) fish. This, of course, leads to a decrease in the growth of fish and, consequently, to the decline of the fishery.

After fishing, returning to the shore, the fishermen begin to cut the fish. The cod is gutted - “plast”, cutting it lengthwise, take out the liver, or “max”, from which the “fish oil” is rendered.

After that, the cod, unwashed and bloody, is laid either under sheds, or directly on the ship receiving the cod, in rows - one across the other - and sprinkled with salt. Private fishermen save salt, which leads to the fact that lightly salted cod soon goes out and starts to stink strongly. In addition to salt, cod is dried and dried in the sun, hanging it on long poles. In addition to cod, in the Arctic seas (in the Barents, White and Norwegian) is found in large numbers herring. Herring is the "gold" of the Arctic seas. In some years, especially a lot of herring appears near the Murmansk coast, from where it goes in huge masses to the White Sea. But so far, the herring fishery in the Soviet northern seas is relatively poorly developed. Norwegians catch herring in large numbers near the Lofoten Islands.

In the Arctic seas, mainly in the Barents Sea, there is also another sharks attracted by the abundance of fish. Shark fishing in the Barents Sea has existed for a long time, but on a very small scale.

Very large sharks are found in the Barents Sea - up to six meters in length. In summer, sharks stay quite far from the coast, but in autumn, with the onset of storms and a dark hole, sharks approach the coast. Sharks are extremely voracious and bold. Terrible teeth, blunt snout and dead "fish" eyes of sharks instill fear even in industrialists.

Sharks are caught on hooks, on which pieces of fried seal fat are planted as bait. The shark, attracted by the smell of fried lard, grabs the bait and swallows the piece along with the hook.

Usually, only the liver (maxu, or voyuksu) is taken out of our sharks, from which fish oil is rendered, while the shark carcass itself is thrown back into the sea. This, of course, is not rational. Shark meat is quite edible. Norwegians prepare canned food from shark meat, and part of the meat goes to "guano" to fertilize the fields. A good "shagreen" is made from shark skin.

Shark fishing, set up rationally, can generate significant income. At present, in Norway, Japan and America, shark fishing is developed on a large scale, and industrialists use the entire shark - skin, meat and fat. In Norway, shark meat is salted and smoked and exported in large quantities to Germany. Norwegians fish for sharks mainly in the waters of our Barents Sea.

Fish is found not only near the Murmansk coast of the Barents Sea, but also in the eastern part of the Barents Sea, near the Kanin Peninsula, in the Pechora region and, in general, along the entire length of the Nenets coast, from the Indiga River to the Yugorsky Shar. Near Kanin it is caught mainly navaga, and in the mouths of the Pechora River and in the river itself, it is caught mainly salmon.

Salmon is a marine fish, but it goes to the river to spawn. When the salmon begins to rise up the rivers for spawning, “fences” are placed across the rivers, barriers made of piles and stakes, against which a wattle fence leans. The fence is placed at the corners: the corners are opened to the mouth of the river, and a hole is left at the very tops of the corners, where the fences and nets are inserted.

Climbing up the river, the salmon meets the “fence”, begins to look for a passage for itself and along the walls of the fence reaches the very top of the corner and through the hole left in it gets into the fence.

Salmon is also caught with curtains near the seashores. Curtains are two nets placed near the shore: one along the shore and the other across. It is also attached to the ends of the network along the network like bags. When a salmon meets a net on its way, it bypasses it, like a fence, and eventually gets into the "cache" of the net - a bag.

All these methods of fishing are outdated and of little profit. The entire fishing business in the North is in need of a radical overhaul and technical improvement.

While our trawlers are already operating in the Barents Sea, there are no trawlers in the Pechora region yet. There is a great lack even in motor bots. Fisheries within northwestern and northeastern Siberia are even less developed than in the seas of the Soviet European Arctic. Only in the Gulf of Ob and in the lower reaches of the Yenisei do local residents - Ostyaks and Samoyeds - fish for their own consumption. But further east, as far as the Bering Strait, one might say, there are no fisheries.

Meanwhile, the coast of Siberia and the mouths of the Siberian rivers are extremely rich in fish.

We are still making poor use of our fish resources, and only now, with the socialist reconstruction of the national economy of the Union, is the system of fisheries changing radically.

The collectivization and mechanization of fisheries give reason to say that the country of socialism under construction will completely master the fish resources of the Arctic seas.

In turn, rational fisheries are already putting in place the construction of canneries and refrigerators, as well as the construction of communication lines for transporting fish. The catch of fish in our northern seas by state and cooperative organizations reaches the following sizes:

In 1930, the catch of various fish amounted to 350,000 centners. It is interesting to compare our catch of fish with that of the Norwegians in the northern seas. Norwegians annually catch, on average, cod over 300,000 centners, herring up to 250,000 centners, sardines about 300,000 centners. The value of the Norwegian catch is about 100 million rubles in gold. Fishing in Norway employs about 100 thousand people. The fishing fleet consists of 5,000 motor boats and 10,000 fishing sailboats. Our next task in the fishing industry in the north is to catch up with Norway. Work is currently underway in this direction. In 1931, our trawl fleet was enlarged, and a plant for fishing motor boats was built in Murmansk.

<<< Назад

Forward >>>

15.12.2013

Soft Power in the Arctic: Fisheries Control in the Circumpolar Zone

After receiving a letter from the PEW Foundation about the prevention of unregulated fishing in the international waters of the Arctic Ocean, I turned to Irina Bobyr for permission to post information on the Arctic and North magazine website. With her permission, I am publishing the full text of this message.

"Yuri Fedorovich, good afternoon!
We bring to your attention information from the Pew Foundation"

How to prevent unregulated fishing in the Arctic? Experts expressed their opinion at the RIAC international conference "The Arctic: a region of development and cooperation"

December 4, 2013 (Moscow) - At the Arctic: A Region for Development and Cooperation conference, the Pew Foundation, together with representatives of the US State Department, presented a solution to prevent uncontrolled fishing in the international waters of the Arctic Ocean (AO), i.e. in an enclave located outside the exclusive economic zones of the subarctic states. The proposed solution is to conclude an international agreement that would allow control of fisheries in this Arctic enclave. The proposal was unanimously supported by the experts - participants of the RIAC conference.

Climate change leads to the fact that every year the ice cover of the Arctic Ocean is reduced. The international waters of the central part of the Arctic Ocean are about 2.8 million square kilometers in area. Once they were one of the most unspoiled corners of the planet, because they were protected by perennial sea ice, and for the same reason there was no need for any regulation of fisheries. In recent years, these waters have been freed from ice by almost 40% in summer, and especially in the area located north of the Bering Strait and directly adjacent to the Arctic maritime borders of Russia and the United States.

Since there is currently no international legal mechanism for commercial fishing in this area of ​​the high seas, vessels from all over the world can start fishing in the ice-free enclave at any time. Small Arctic cod, the main food link in the Arctic food chain, a resource that supports seals living in the Arctic, and therefore polar bears, can become an object of prey here. Arctic cod or polar cod stocks have not been studied and accidental overfishing could undermine the entire fragile Arctic ecosystem.

In the future, there is also a high probability that other fish species will spread into the water area freed from ice, and behind them - fishing trawlers. “It is quite a natural process when there is a shift in commercial fishing areas following the migration of fish, we can see this in the Barents Sea,” says Vyacheslav Zilanov, chairman of the coordinating council of associations, associations of the fishing industry of the Northern Basin.

In this regard, the conference discussed the topical issue of the position of the Arctic states on the issue of concluding an International Arctic Fisheries Agreement - the introduction of a voluntary moratorium on mining on the high seas until the necessary scientific data on the stocks of aquatic biological resources are obtained. The discussion was held within the framework of the section "Problems of regulation of fisheries in the Arctic region"

“It is important for the Arctic countries to sign an agreement that would regulate fishing in the central waters of the Arctic, since their interests directly relate to this region,” said Scott Halleman, head of the International Arctic Program of the American Pew Foundation.

As Alfred Jacobson, Executive Director of the Inuit Circumpolar Council (Greenland), stated: “The political situation is now favorable. Canada and Greenland have already taken the initiative and are ready to support the agreement. I will add that Denmark will do everything to eliminate the risk of uncontrolled fishing in this region. I note that the principle of Danish fishermen is based on the conservation and reproduction of marine resources based on the general needs of citizens. We call on the countries of the Arctic Five to adopt the International Arctic Fisheries Agreement in the Arctic. It's time to create it." "Delaying the adoption of the treaty will cost more than signing it" - David Bolton, Ambassador, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and Fisheries.

The experts also discussed the need for measures to study and conserve the biological resources of the Arctic Ocean (AO) in the face of climate change and ice reduction.

“The agreement on a voluntary moratorium is also necessary in order to abandon commercial fishing until data on the ecosystem of the Arctic Ocean are clarified, since no scientific work has yet been carried out in this area, and the Arctic is still a mystery,” Scott said. Highliman, head of the International Arctic Program of the American Pew Foundation.

The discussion of the draft agreement was started by five Arctic states (Russia, USA, Canada, Norway and Denmark on behalf of Greenland) in the spring of 2013 and will be continued in Greenland in February 2014.

About Pew

The PEW Charitable Foundation is one of the largest scientific environmental advocacy organizations. The Fund has more than 500 employees who work in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, as well as in Europe, the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific. Ocean conservation projects aim to maintain the biological integrity of marine ecosystems: creating conditions to curb the overexploitation of the oceans and prevent the destruction of their marine habitat - http://oceansnorth.org/

Communication contacts: Irina Bobyr, Pew external press office, Communicator agency.

Yuri Lukin: questions and preliminary comments on the regulation of fishing in the "international waters of the Arctic Ocean"

First of all, I want to sincerely thank the external press office of The Pew Charitable Trusts, the largest charitable foundation in the United States (Philadelphia). I have deep respect for the activities of the foundation, which stimulates civic activity, applies an analytical approach, the power of knowledge to solve the most complex problems, including the environmental problems of the oceans.

In connection with the proposals under discussion on the conservation of the biological resources of the Arctic Ocean, I would like to clarify some details. And most importantly, to understand the essence of the answers to two basic questions.

1. Does the proposed control over fisheries in the central circumpolar waters of the Arctic Ocean today meet the national interests of Russia, given that our state is preparing a second application for submission to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in 2014? In turn, Canada and Denmark have already filed such claims at the end of 2013, claiming the continental shelf outside their exclusive economic zones. Earlier, back in 2009, Norway's claims for 235,000 square kilometers of the continental shelf were satisfied.

2. Is all this another tool of soft power, which is increasingly being used by US diplomacy in its Arctic policy, not only and not so much to preserve the environment, but to internationalize the Arctic space? And the main thing that makes one doubt the sincerity of good intentions here is the fact that the United States has not yet ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

There is a quite understandable desire to listen to the opinion of lawyers on international maritime law and to clarify the issue of the conceptual and legal definition of "the international waters of the Arctic Ocean", its correlation with the concept of "continental shelf". According to a respected non-governmental foundation and the US State Department, the “international inputs of the Arctic Ocean” is an enclave located outside the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of the Arctic states. However, outside the EEZ there may also be a continental Arctic shelf. What about the claims of Denmark, Canada, Russia to the North Pole in these international waters, their applications to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf? What opportunities and risks (threats) arise for Russia in this case?

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), adopted in 1982, as you know, determines the legal status of the maritime spaces designated in it (territorial sea, contiguous zone, high seas, continental shelf), their limits (boundaries) in order to establishing their legal regime. The national interests of Denmark, Canada, Russia, Norway are currently being implemented on a completely legitimate basis of international maritime law. Except for the US, which, as you know, has not ratified the UNCLOS. The sovereignty and jurisdiction of the coastal state extends to internal waters, the territorial sea and the airspace above them.

Another part of the maritime spaces has an international status, the legal regime of which is established by international law. Any subarctic state (Denmark, Iceland, Canada, Norway, Russia, USA, Finland, Sweden) on the basis of current international law can claim a two hundred mile exclusive economic zone of the sea. Everything else is international waters. With an important exception: if it is unequivocally proved that the continental shelf extends beyond the exclusive economic zone.

Fig.1. International waters of the Arctic.
URL: http://img.rg.ru/pril/article/73/12/92/vodi_arktiki-600.jpg

All subarctic countries have de facto established their own exclusive economic zones. Let's look at the maps and diagrams about which circumpolar water area of ​​the Arctic Ocean we are talking about and who claims these spaces from the standpoint of the current UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of ​​1982.

Rice. 2. Alexey Ivanov (Institute of the Earth's Crust SB RAS, Irkutsk). Again about the Arctic shelf. URL: http://www.e-reading.by/bookreader.php/136209/Troickiii_Variant_2009_%2342_%2824-11-2009%29.html The states of the Arctic region, the distribution of their 200-mile zones and potential zones beyond 200 miles to which these states can claim. The disputed regions between Canada, Denmark and Russia are highlighted in bold red. The scheme is taken from the website of the Research Center for International Boundaries at Durham University (IBRU, Durham University).

Within the exclusive economic zone, the coastal state is granted sovereign rights in relation to the exploration, development and conservation of natural resources located at the bottom, in its bowels and in the overlying waters, and in relation to other activities for the purpose of economic exploration and development of the zone such as the production of energy through the use of water, current and wind.

« The main bone of contention "- the geopolitical redistribution of the Arctic is currently represented by the continental shelf, sea ​​bottom. If the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf satisfies the application that Russia is now preparing, then our country, like other subarctic states, will have the right to extract oil, gas and other resources outside the exclusive economic zone.

Fig.3. Kaminsky V.D. Deep structure of the central Arctic basin (in connection with the justification of the outer boundary of the continental shelf of the Russian Federation and the assessment of hydrocarbon resources). June 8, 2010 URL: http://www.ocean.ru/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=274&Itemid=78 (accessed 12/10/2013).

The Arctic Council currently includes 20 states of the world, including 8 members and 12 observers. In fact, it is quite possible to talk about the real existence of the Arctic G20, which includes countries with different status in the Arctic Council when making decisions on the Arctic. All these countries - the USA, Norway, Germany, China, India, Japan and others will have the opportunity to fish in the so-called circumpolar waters. "international waters", divided into the continental shelves of Denmark, Canada, Russia. As for the United States, its claims will be legitimate if this state ratifies the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and files a corresponding application with the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. And here comes the moment of truth. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has not been ratified by the United States. What for? Maybe for the United States, with their exclusivity, international laws are not written at all. There is power, why is there law in the Arctic? But the regulation of fisheries was attended to: representatives of the US State Department supported the proposal of experts - participants in the RIAC conference. In fact, this is another step, not the first and not the last, along the path of "internationalization" of the Arctic. Internationalization in international law is the recognition of a regime of general international use, which, of course, limits the national rights of the Arctic countries, including Canada, Russia, Denmark, and Norway.

About one more characteristic detail of the declaration on the adoption of the International Arctic Fisheries Agreement in the Arctic. As they say here, in Russia, the skin of an unkilled bear is still being divided. It is said that "in ice-free enclave ships from various countries of the world can start mining at any time. But this is just one of the possible forecasts of climate change in the Arctic and it will not come tomorrow. "The prey is here can be small arctic cod…”. Yet again can be? "In the future also there is a high probability distribution of other fish species…”. "Stocks of arctic cod or polar cod not studied »…

So it can really first accept the project and determine specific steps (road map) for: 1) studying the reserves of the biological resources of the Arctic Ocean in the face of climate change (both warming and cooling); 2) development and discussion of an international legal mechanism that controls commercial fishing, taking into account the current UNCLOS (1982); 3) the adoption and public discussion of options for the International Arctic Fisheries Agreement - the introduction of a voluntary moratorium on mining on the high seas until the necessary scientific data on the stocks of aquatic biological resources are obtained. However, this moratorium cannot be the prerogative of the Arctic Five alone. It should be supported at least declaratively by the entire Arctic G20. Otherwise, the problem will not be solved in full and in the interests of real protection of the Arctic environment. In conducting this kind of research and discussion, I think The Pew Charitable Trusts can play its significant, very important role.

It also makes sense to wait several years for the decision of the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf after the submission and satisfaction of applications from Denmark, Canada and Russia. And the US ratify UNCLOS (1982).

As for Russia, it would be logical to clarify the positions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of the Russian Federation on the issues discussed, their vision of protecting Russia's national interests in the context of the internationalization of the Arctic space. We have already donated more than one “Kemskaya volost”.

It is very important for Russia at the present time to solve the most urgent environmental problem - to carry out in full the program of general cleaning of the Russian Arctic from the garbage of previous years. In the context of another freeze of the State Program for the socio-economic development of the Russian Arctic, the variants of which have been unsuccessfully developed since 2009-2010, this is one of the few realistically achievable tasks today. And finally, to adopt in 2014 the long-suffering federal law on the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation, the draft of which was passed in 2012-2013. public review and received good reviews. This is in our power, otherwise it turns out that we actually do not have the borders of the Russian Arctic (AZRF). What are the national interests in the conditions of internationalization, if we ourselves are substituted in this way, dragging out to infinity the solution of issues that have long been overripe along the borders of the Russian Arctic.

As conclusions it is necessary to emphasize once again that the problems of fisheries regulation in the circumpolar zone of the Arctic Ocean are undoubtedly relevant and require their solution, the attention of both non-governmental public organizations and foundations, the general public, and all states de facto members of the Arctic G20 within the framework of the Arctic Council. These are 8 countries that are members of the Arctic Council - Denmark, Iceland, Canada, Norway, Russia, USA, Finland, Sweden + 12 more countries that have observer status: Great Britain, Germany, France, Poland, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, China, India, Singapore, South Korea, Japan. If here we confine ourselves only to the states included in the so-called. Arctic Five A5 (Denmark, Canada, Norway, Russia, USA), will all decisions and agreements on the Arctic Ocean be respected in the future, will they ensure stability in the Arctic region, reduce the level of conflict?

In the Arctic, the Arctic Ocean, in the event of conflict situations, is absolutely necessary to resolve them. system package approach . In the light of all the above, including the problems of determining the belonging of the continental shelf to one or another subarctic country, issues of environmental management, fisheries control, conservation of Arctic biological resources today and for future generations of earthlings, etc.

Lukin Yu.F., Doctor of History, Professor,
editor-in-chief of the journal "Arctic and North"