This week’s news of a Ukrainian scientist’s arrest raised more than a few eyebrows. They claim that Russia may be planning to take advantage of oil reserves in Antarctica. The Antarctic Treaty – with its ironclad, no-questions-asked anti-mining provisions – will be renegotiated in 2048. This alarming prospect has caused deep alarm among international actors, who watched the rollback of strong environmental protections across this remote Arctic region with incredulity and horror.
The Antarctic Treaty, signed in 1959, came into force in 1961. The Treaty created an environment for nations to work collaboratively and undertake scientific study in Antarctica. Now known as the Kyoto treaty, this agreement is accompanied by the Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection, which came into force in 1998. It clearly bans commercial mining activities in Antarctica and in its surrounding waters. Notably, Article 7 of the protocol states that “any activity relating to mineral resources, other than scientific research, shall be prohibited.”
With Russia’s growing interest in the region, particularly following the arrest of a Ukrainian scientist accused of threatening national security by advocating for a marine protected area on the Antarctic Peninsula, questions arise regarding compliance with these international agreements.
Concerns About Russian Activities
Evidence has emerged that Russia has conducted such seismic surveys in Antarctic waters. They say they have located future hydrocarbon reserves with a total worth of 70 billion tonnes. A recent report by a UK parliamentary committee emphasized these new trends. It left many grave undertones to confusion regarding the mining ban enshrined in the Madrid Protocol, which was raised the Franco shoe—wart.
“Although Russia has maintained that the activity forms part of a scientific program, the nature and intent of these surveys cast doubt on compliance with the protocol’s prohibition and risk undermining its authority,” – UK parliamentary committee report.
In brief, Russia has indicated that it does not want to see conservation measures that would impact its growing krill fishing economy. This perspective was detailed in a document linked to the recent arrest, which stated, “The implementation of these plans will … lead to the loss of the opportunity to develop hydrocarbon resources by Russia on the continental shelf of Antarctica.”
Evan Bloom, an expert on international law regarding Antarctica, noted that any mining activity would create significant disruptions within the Antarctic Treaty system. He stated, “Any sort of mining undertaken by a party to the treaty would be extremely disruptive and would create a crisis in the treaty system.” Fears that Russia’s actions will spiral into a wider conflict. This is indicative of the fear many have felt over Russia’s possible intentions.
Implications of Mining Proposals
The implications of any Russian attempts to exploit Antarctica’s mineral resources are profound, not only for environmental conservation but for international relations. The Antarctic Treaty System allows any country with decision-making powers to convene a conference to review the protocol’s operations starting in 2048. The way this provision is written, as the deadline comes closer, countries need to cooperate even more to make sure that protections are not lost.
Australia has been a leader in the push for a marine protected area on the Antarctic Peninsula. A spokesperson from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade emphasized the importance of compliance: “Australia expects all Antarctic Treaty Parties to comply with all of their obligations under the Environmental Protocol.”
That lack of clarity about Russia’s intentions is a concern echoed by many experts. Tony Press stated, “That means they should not only not be thinking about mining in Antarctica in the current period, but they shouldn’t be doing activities that are in fact related to the exploitation of mineral resources.” This growing opposition highlights a greater need to be on the lookout for government activity that seeks to undermine our existing, hard-won treaties.
Political Dimensions and Future Challenges
Further complicating the arrest of the Ukrainian scientist is an emerging sense of underlying political motive. Vasyl Myroshnychenko remarked, “It doesn’t take much to understand that it’s a political prosecution,” suggesting that geopolitical tensions may influence actions taken by Russia in Antarctica.
Given all of this, we’re obviously hopeful that there’s a misinterpretation about Russia’s plans here, but… Evan Bloom<AccountOwner> on June 25, 2014 5:27 pm “My hope is that there is some misunderstanding here and that they are not actively considering trying to take this step,” he stated.
As discussions surrounding Antarctica’s future unfold at an ongoing conservation conference in Hobart, stakeholders must navigate a complex web of international law, environmental ethics, and geopolitical interests.
