Sen. Murkowski Remarks : 4th Symposium on the Impacts of an
Ice-Diminished Arctic on Naval and Maritime Operations
June 21, 2011 at 9:20 a.m. Navy Memorial
***As Prepared For Delivery***
Thank you and good
morning. I am very pleased to be here at
the Fourth Symposium on the Impacts of an Ice-Diminished Arctic. I continue to be impressed by the support for
the conference, the caliber of your speakers and the continued interest in the
issue.
Clearly, the impacts of
an ice-diminished Arctic are being felt significantly in my home state of
Alaska. We have seen the dramatic
effects that a warming Arctic are having on the region and it looks like the
low ice extent is continuing as May of this year was the third lowest for the
month since 1979.
Interest in the Arctic
continues to grow, both nationally and internationally, as globalization and
increased maritime commerce and resource development, due primarily to the
affects of climate change, capture the public’s interest.
I was just in Alaska
this past weekend for the Arctic Imperative.
I thought all the Arctic experts were up at that conference, but as I
look around the room, I see that not everyone is up in Alaska. The problem is that we are well covered here
in DC and in Alaska, but in the middle of the country, we still have work to
do. I continually am working to convince
the people in Iowa and Arkansas and other states that we are an Arctic nation
and why it is important.
As many of you know, I
recently attended the 7th Ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council
in Nuuk, Greenland with Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary of the
Interior Salazar.
The trip
was historic because it was the first time a Secretary of State has led the
United States delegation to an Arctic Council meeting. It was also the first time a member of
Congress has attended.
We met
with the foreign ministers of the eight Arctic Council nations and
representatives of indigenous groups to discuss issues related to Arctic
governance, climate change, environmental protection, and watched the ministers
sign a historic search and rescue agreement.
As an Alaskan, It was
music to my ears to hear Secretary Clinton say that the United States is an
Arctic nation and as such we have responsibilities in the region. We are an Arctic nation because of Alaska and
its indigenous people. The
acknowledgement by the Secretary was also important for the other Arctic
nations to hear, as many representatives have wondered when the U.S. would step
it up in the Arctic. There were other
positive outcomes from the meeting in Nuuk.
The Search and Rescue
agreement, the first ever legally binding agreement
among Arctic states negotiated under the auspices of the Arctic Council, will
strengthen the cooperation on search and rescue between Arctic states. As Arctic sea ice decreases, maritime
activities are increasing in the Arctic. Aviation traffic is also on the rise
as new polar aviation routes cross the Arctic air space in several
directions. Limited rescue resources,
challenging weather conditions, and the remoteness of the area render SAR
operations difficult in the Arctic, making coordination among the Arctic
nations imperative.
I was pleased that the
Arctic Council also announced the formation of a new task force that will
negotiate measures for oil spill preparedness and response throughout the
region.
The decision to start
these negotiations is evidence of the strong commitment to proactively address budding
issues in the region and to create international protocols to prevent and respond to offshore
oil
spills
in areas of the region that are becoming increasingly accessible to
exploration. The
conference was also important to learn what others in the region are doing.
I have to tell you, it
is frustrating to see the United States struggling so mightily with our economy
and the present fiscal environment while the other Arctic nations are moving
forward with significant investments in the region.
Russia has recognized
that their natural resource future lies in the Arctic and they are investing
heavily. It was very significant when,
after 40 years of negotiating, Norway and Russia signed a historic new treaty
on maritime delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea and Arctic Ocean.
There had been a long history of cooperation on straddling fish stocks, but the
new treaty also addresses energy development across the new boundary and
created a joint operating agreement.
This treaty also provides an excellent example of the type of
international cooperation that is possible in the Arctic.
The Russians are
investing in the port of Murmansk as the base for the Russian Arctic with
marine infrastructure. Some of the
critical investments will be public-private partnerships including foreign
capital. They are also contemplating upgrading their nuclear ice breaker fleet
while continuing to build ice strengthened commercial ships to carry minerals,
hydrocarbons, passengers and cargo through ice covered northern waters.
In the United States,
however, it is a different story. While
the Coast Guard, Navy and Army Corps of Engineers continue to study the
potential infrastructure needs in Alaska, we are not moving forward with any
significant new investments, or strategies to do so. With the scheduled decommissioning of the
POLAR SEA, the Coast Guard will only maintain one heavy ice breaker in its
fleet, which is not expected to return to service until 2013.
I believe there is
widespread agreement that U.S. policy has recognized the strategic importance
of the Arctic to the national and economic security of the country, but we are
doing very little to increase our capability to implement our policies. Beyond Russia, the other Arctic nations are
also investing in infrastructure for energy development and maritime commerce,
and much of this investment is from international companies in partnership with
Arctic states.
Given the lack of
infrastructure in the Alaskan Arctic, it is crucial to promote this type of
investment. One of the major differences
is the lack of regulatory certainty in the United States that prohibits
investment. While oil companies have
invested billions of dollars in off-shore leases, we are yet to drill an
exploratory well. Whether regulatory
hurdles or litigation are responsible, it appears that until there is certainty
in the regulatory environment, both State and Federal investment in Arctic
infrastructure will be a challenge in the United States.
Another impediment is
the lack of a coherent energy policy for the Arctic. The United States simply does not have
one. We know we have tremendous
resources up north, potentially 30 billion barrels of oil equivalent in
off-shore Alaska, not to mention the billions of oil reserves in ANWR and the
National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska. We
talk a lot about sustainable development, but a clear statement to guide
activities, investment and to prioritize federal resources is necessary in
moving forward with development in these areas.
One area we are in
strong agreement is the need for continued and enhanced international
scientific cooperation. We have made
tremendous progress through instruments like the International Polar year and
other agreement and I am happy to see so much of the research to be presented
during the symposium.
I see the need for continued cooperative
research in areas such as Arctic climate and ice modeling; baseline ecosystem
indicators; oil spill mitigation and response; resource damage assessments and
many other areas.
So, what does the
future hold for the Arctic? I believe
that the pace of change in the Arctic DEMANDS that greater attention be focused
on the region. The implications of the dynamic changing Arctic for U.S. security,
economic, environmental, and political interests depend on it.
I give you all my
commitment that I will do my part to move the Law of the Sea Treaty through the
Senate; to advocate for new ice breakers
and infrastructure in the Arctic; to
support Arctic research and to encourage
the United States to continue increasing its’ role in the region and with the
international Arctic community.
And I challenge all of
you, as Arctic leaders in this country and abroad, to help move the Arctic
conversation forward and provide us all with valuable insight, analysis and
initiatives.
I hope you have a very
productive conference and I look forward to catching up on the presentations
and dialogue. Thank you.
###