Proposition 53K1000

Proposition de résolution pour la protection de l'Arctique.

General information ¶

Authors

Ecolo Olivier Deleuze, Thérèse Snoy et d'Oppuers
Groen Eva Brems, Kristof Calvo

Submission date

Jan. 11, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Arctic climate change environmental protection resolution of parliament

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Abstained from voting

VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

May 19, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

by Mr. Philippe Blanchart, rapporteur, being absent, refers to the written report.

This is a topic that leaves us a little distant, but which is still very current.

“The Arctic is like a canary in a coal mine. This is a warning for the climate of the planet.” – Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Ban Ki-moon said this on September 2, 2009. Scientists have explained to him that they have seen in the last two years a sudden and significant increase in methane emissions, one of the most aggressive greenhouse gases and therefore one of the main responsible for global warming.

by Mr. Ban Ki-moon said that the Arctic is the place where global warming is the fastest in the world. It seems to be acting slowly but in reality it is acting faster and faster, much more than expected.

The Arctic is thus the thermometer that indicates the measurement of planetary changes. The changes experienced by this fragile ecosystem are, of course, determined by the greenhouse gas emissions of the entire planet and in particular of ours, those of the industrialized countries.

These ecosystems are also influenced by our emissions of persistent organic pollutants that rise through the atmospheric pathway to the poles and will settle in living organisms, concentrating in the blood of mammals. We are all co-responsible for the current situation in the Arctic and that is why we all need to worry about it.

The Arctic is not a vacuum, an ice sheet or a white coat. There is life. First, that of the so-called first populations that are the Inuit and whose culture contains treasures of intelligence, an intelligence in the sense of understanding, adaptation and harmony with the ecosystems from which we would do well to inspire ourselves.

Jean Malaurie, an ethno-geographer who lived with them and dedicated himself to them for 50 years, is now appointed ambassador of goodwill for the Arctic regions. He recently wrote: “It is an ardent obligation to exalt those peoples whose heritage can be the leaven of a humanity that builds itself. They did not have much luck. Born in their culture because they are considered primitive, they are rushed with the warming into a petroleum development that risks being fatal to them.”

The Arctic area also contains animal and plant biodiversity. Given the extreme conditions, the species and forms of life seen there are fragile and threatened to disappear due to the melting of the ice and freezing. The white bear is, of course, the emblem, but there are many others. The Baffin Sea is home to between 80 and 90 percent of the narvals, a kind of whale. The area also houses blue whales, phoques, sharks, cormorans, tridactyle mouths and many other migratory birds.

The melting of ice – and this is impressive – causes changes in the absorption of solar radiation. This can lead to changes in marine currents. The Gulf Stream, which makes our regions temperate, could be influenced by this. Other scientific hypotheses indicate that the melting of Greenland’s glaciers could cause sea levels to rise, which in turn can alter the planet’s rotation axis.

Today, these are scientific hypotheses, but they clearly indicate the enormous importance that this phenomenon represents for the whole world.

We will not avoid changes in the Arctic system. Even the best international conventions will not avoid them. However, a multilateral, comprehensive and zone-specific governance instrument, as well as binding, would be a way to better control these changes in cooperation and precaution.

In fact, precaution now faces craving. The melting of ice opens shorter routes for maritime transport; the defrost of land and seas opens the door to enormous desires for prospecting and exploiting mining and oil resources, in particular.

According to the American Institute of Geological Studies, offshore reservoirs in the Arctic contain 90 billion barrels of oil, technically extractable. In reality, it is quite difficult. Following the purchase of drilling licenses by companies such as Perm Energy, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, oil activity on the west coast of Greenland is accelerating considerably.

It is paradoxical to see that at a time when all our countries display magnificent targets of reducing greenhouse gases, they also rush to exploit oil where it is the most difficult and dangerous. Why dangerous? Because the drilling season is short: it ends with the arrival of winter frost, that is, after three months of activity.

In addition, thickening the ice layer makes it impossible to drill emergency wells. In the event that a rescue well cannot be set up before the frost arrives, an eruption could cause a leak that could not be managed before the next season. The consequences of a spill or oil leak in the Arctic are significantly more serious than in such a case in warmer waters, for example, in the Gulf of Mexico as in 2010. Remember also the example of the Exxon Valdez that caused a large-scale disaster in Alaska: 20 years later, its effects are still felt.

According to a senior official of a Canadian company, specializing in post-black tide interventions, there is currently no solution or method that would allow us to recover oil in case of black tide in the Arctic. Ice temperature, extreme climatic conditions, geographical distance constitute serious obstacles to any pollution depollution intervention.

According to estimates from the U.S. Mineral Management Service Agency, concession blocks in the Arctic Ocean or near Alaska, however, have one in five chances of being the cause of major black tide during their operating life.

In addition, in recent years, the hazards associated with icebergs have increased as several major glaciers in Greenland have begun to disintegrate due to climate change. It is likely that these icebergs are too large to be dragged out of the passage of drilling machines. In other words, the platforms themselves should also be removed shortly.

Last week’s Evening also witnessed some amazing aspects of mining in the Canadian Great North. It was titled “Zola in the Caribbean Country.” He ⁇ testimonies of expulsion of populations, destruction of entire villages, seriously polluted environment, violated rights for workers, health abuses, etc.

You have a proposal for a resolution. In the absence of the speaker, I would like to tell you the story. Remember that it had already been presented to you for the first time. Then, the Canadian ambassador had requested to organize hearings with neighboring countries, which was done in early April. We also audited scientists and the International Polar Foundation.

The text that is presented to you today has been slightly modified, but not in its substance or in its profound meaning. In fact, we have adapted the terms of international law. Thus, instead of talking about a treaty, we call for the strengthening of international governance of the Arctic area with the aim of adopting a protocol that would be based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

“This Protocol will confirm the value of the area’s human heritage, end the appropriation of international waters and take all necessary measures to protect indigenous crops, biodiversity and natural resources.”

Another strong point of the resolution is that we maintain the demand for a moratorium on any exploration activity or any expansion of mining activities in the Arctic region. Unfortunately, neighboring countries are trying to appropriate the maritime areas in the center of the pole and very disputed points are far from being resolved. There is a Arctic Council and institutions have been established. They also met last week and reached certain agreements, including an agreement on mutual assistance in the event of a ship’s distress in polar waters. At the moment, this does not go further and the disputed points are not resolved. It is therefore absolutely indispensable that there be a binding agreement with institutional means.

You may wonder why a small country like Belgium is involved in this matter. I think we have something to do. We have our experience in Antarctica, where we have been pioneers. We have researchers, navigators, explorers, including the Gerlache family, who have played a fundamental role in protecting Antarctica. So why not work in the Arctic?

At the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, officials work on the issue of whale protection, at the International Whale Commission. On the occasion of the review of this resolution, we found that we have scientists specializing in polar biodiversity or in Arctic oil exploitation. Therefore, it should not be considered that our country is too small or that it is located too far away to intervene.

In conclusion, I would like to refer to a book that Isabelle Stengers, a philosopher at ULB, has just published, titled At Time of Disasters. Resist the barbarism that comes. The title says long.

Obviously, this book was published just after the nuclear disaster in Japan. She says there that it is necessary to "come out of the rage of impotence through anticipation of future ecological accidents. Will we still be grumbling over our powerlessness in the face of the next ecological catastrophe?"I hope not and I think our diplomats, our governments, our citizens, our researchers can help prevent a catastrophe in the Arctic.

Isabelle Stengers says: “We must be careful, we must protect fragile areas. It is the opposite of anesthesia: it takes courage, imagination, the ability to consider the possible unlikely."I hope that we will be able to tell ourselves one day that we were right to invest ourselves in this subject. I would like to thank you and in particular the President of the Commission, Mr. of Donnea, for his interest and support on this issue.

In fact, Mr. Donna will intervene.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would indeed like to greet the authors of the draft resolution and all those who, in the working group I presided over, have worked on the preparation of a balanced, ambitious but realistic text that takes into account the hearings of ambassadors of certain Arctic countries, including Norway and Denmark, and various experts.

It is very important to pressure the eight Arctic nations to sign a Memorandum of Understanding for the management and prevention of accidents and pollution in this area, which is inspired in particular by the Antarctic Treaty and which respects and is inspired by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Nothing is less certain at the moment. There are a lot of offshore oil or gas appetites in an Arctic Ocean that freezes rapidly, as recently recalled.

What is significant is that on May 12, in Greenland, in Nuuk, the eight Arctic nations signed a convention, not to prevent pollution but to agree on what to do in case of an accident. They are therefore part of a post-catastrophe spirit rather than a willingness to prevent accidents.

Experts today believe that in the event of a black tide in the Arctic Ocean, given the presence of icebergs and floating ice, there is no technique likely to prevent a major catastrophe.

We must do everything we can to ensure that our country as a member of the European Union, the European Union and the international community make every effort to preserve one of the last major natural spaces of our planet.

We know that at present, many natural sites extremely valuable for biodiversity and climate change prevention are in danger. Just go into the Niger Delta to see how oil tankers have “sweeped” nature. Just go to the Amazon to get an idea of the considerable damage that has been done on the edge of this vast forest area by unconscious entrepreneurs. There are projects that I will call “foolish” such as the construction of a highway called to cross the Serengeti Park in Tanzania. Not to mention the threats that weigh in the Congo on the Albertin Rift and, in particular, on Lake Édouard. There is also the Virunga Park where the rebels do everything they can to destroy one of the most beautiful natural reserves in the world; moreover, the preservation of this area is also threatened due to the greed and lack of ethics of some oil companies, European, among others.

If we do not take care, there will soon be no more in the world than a few zoological gardens, a few botanical gardens and vast cloaks in which will crumble ever poorer populations, victims of the environmental damage of the great global natural reserves that can, however, still – but it is time, it is more than time, it is less than five! – if they are preserved, limit certain factors of climate change and natural disasters.

This resolution is important and symbolic. Beyond the preservation of the Arctic, it participates in a general struggle for the preservation of the great natural spaces, the great reserves of biodiversity of the planet.

The MR group will therefore support this resolution which, as recalled, was voted unanimously minus one abstention in the Foreign Affairs Committee.