Scientists about fisheries in the Arctic. An international treaty has banned fishing in the melting Arctic ice. Soft power in the Arctic: fisheries control in the circumpolar zone

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

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

The biggest fish caught in the Barents Sea are cod, haddock and pollock. These fish weigh from 2 to 20 kg. Pomor industrialists catch cod either with longlines or with hooks.

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

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

Longline fishing.

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

But it is even more difficult to remove the line from the water. The wet line slips in your hands, your hands become numb from the cold wind, and at the same time you have to remove the fish from the hooks and carefully put the “line” on the bottom of the boat so that it does not get tangled.

In addition to longline fishing, cod is also caught by hooking. This method of fishing is done like this: a fisherman, sitting in a boat, lowers (“poisons”) a long string with a load into the water. A hook is attached to the ends of the string, and a “bait” - a shiny metal plate - is suspended near it. From time to time, the fisherman quickly pulls the string up and, if he feels that a fish is hooked, he pulls the catch into the boat. When fishing with a hook, a fish, seeing a shiny plate in the water, mistakes it for a small fish, rushes after it and touches the hook, which digs into its side or other place.

Of course, hook fishing is an obsolete method of fishing, and it is more or less suitable where fish are found in abundance. In addition, fishing by hooking is a predatory method. With this method of fishing, many fish are injured by hooks, the wounded fish goes into the sea and dies.

Currently, fish are caught mainly using trawls. "Trawling" fishing is that trawler(a specially adapted steam vessel) releases a special floating seine - a trawl - into the sea behind the stern. The trawl looks like a large bag tied to a thick rope. The trawl drags along the seabed following the quietly moving steamer. When the ship notices that the tug of the trawl is being pulled too hard, the trawler is stopped, the trawl is pulled to the side and lifted out of the water onto the deck. Then they open the "motnya" back trawl, and they dump the fish and everything that got into it out of the trawl.

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

After fishing, returning to the shore, the fishermen begin cutting up the fish. The cod is gutted - “flatten”, cutting it lengthwise, taking out the liver, or “maksu”, from which the “fish oil” is rendered.

After this, the cod, unwashed and bloody, is placed either under awnings 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 bad and begins to smell strongly. In addition to salting, cod is dried and dried in the sun, hanging it on long poles. In addition to cod, it is found in large quantities in the Arctic seas (Barents, White and Norwegian). 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 into the White Sea in huge masses. But so far the herring fishery in the Soviet northern seas is relatively poorly developed. Norwegians catch herring in large quantities near the Lofoten Islands.

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

There are very large sharks in the Barents Sea - up to six meters in length. In summer, sharks stay quite far from the shore, but in the fall, with the onset of storms and a dark hole, sharks approach the shore. Sharks are extremely voracious and brave. The scary teeth, blunt snout and dead “fish” eyes of sharks inspire fear even in industrialists.

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

Usually, only the liver (maksu, or voyuksu) is removed from sharks, from which fish oil is rendered, and 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 is used as “guano” to fertilize fields. Good “shagreen” is made from shark skin.

Shark fishing, managed rationally, can generate significant income. Currently, 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 hunt for sharks mainly in the waters of our Barents Sea.

The 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 generally along the entire length of the Nenets coast, from the Indiga River to Yugorsky Shar. Near Kanin it is mainly caught navaga, and at the mouths of the Pechora River and in the river itself it is caught mainly salmon.

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

Rising up the river, the salmon encounters a “fence”, begins to look for a passage and along the walls of the fence reaches the very top of the corner and, through a hole left in it, enters the fence.

Salmon is also caught with hooks around sea ​​shores. The curtains are two nets placed near the shore: one along the shore, and the other across it. More bags like bags are attached to the ends of the network. When a salmon encounters a net on its way, it bypasses it, like a fence, and eventually ends up in the net’s “hiding place” - a bag.

All these fishing methods are outdated and not very profitable. The entire fishing industry in the North needs radical restructuring 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 big shortage even of motor bots there. 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 - make their living fishing for your own consumption. But further east, up to the Bering Strait, one might say, there are no fisheries.

Meanwhile, the coast of Siberia and the mouths of 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 fishing system radically changing.

Collectivization and mechanization of fisheries give grounds to say that the country of socialism under construction will completely master the fishing wealth of the Arctic seas.

In turn, rational fisheries already prioritize the construction of canneries and refrigerators, as well as the construction of communication routes for transporting fish. The fish catch 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 fish catch with the Norwegian catch in the northern seas. Norwegians annually catch, on average, over 300,000 quintals of cod, up to 250,000 quintals of herring, and about 300,000 quintals of sardines. The value of the Norwegian catch is about 100 million rubles in gold. About 100 thousand people are employed in fishing in Norway. The fishing fleet consists of 5,000 motor vessels and 10,000 fishing sailboats. Our immediate goal in fishing in the north is to catch up with Norway. Work is now going in this direction. In 1931, our trawl fleet was expanded, and a factory of fishing motor boats was built in Murmansk.

15.12.2013

Soft power in the Arctic: fisheries control in the circumpolar zone

""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 opinions at the RIAC international conference “The Arctic: Region of Development and Cooperation”

Climate change means that every year ice cover The SLO is decreasing. The area of ​​the international waters of the central part of the Arctic Ocean is about 2.8 million sq. km. They were once one of the most pristine places on the planet because they were protected by long-standing sea ice, and for the same reason there was no need for any fishing regulation there. In recent years, these waters have become almost 40% free of ice 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 framework to control commercial fishing in this area of ​​the high seas, vessels from around the world could begin fishing in the ice-free enclave at any time. The object of production here could be 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. Arctic cod or Arctic cod stocks are unknown, and accidental overfishing could undermine the entire fragile Arctic ecosystem.

In the future, there is also a high probability of the spread of other fish species into the ice-free water space, followed by fishing trawlers. "It's quite natural process“When commercial fishing areas shift following the migration of fish, we can observe this in the Barents Sea,” says Vyacheslav Zilanov, chairman of the coordinating council of 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 - introducing a voluntary moratorium on fishing on the high seas until the necessary scientific data on stocks of aquatic biological resources is obtained. The discussion was held within the framework of the section “Problems of regulating fisheries in the Arctic region”

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

As Alfred Jacobson, executive director of the Inuit Circumpolar Council (Greenland), stated: “The political situation is favorable now. Canada and Greenland have already taken the initiative and are ready to support the agreement. Let me add that Denmark will do everything to eliminate the risk of uncontrolled fishing in this region. Let me 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 Arctic Five countries to accept the International Arctic Fisheries Agreement. 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.

Experts also discussed the need for measures to study and preserve the biological resources of the Arctic Ocean (AO) in the context of climate change and loss of ice.

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

Discussions on the draft agreement were initiated by the five Arctic states (Russia, USA, Canada, Norway and Denmark on behalf of Greenland) in the spring of 2013 and will continue in Greenland in February 2014.

Information about Pew

The PEW Charitable Foundation is one of the largest scientific environmental human rights organizations. The Foundation has more than 500 employees who work in the USA, 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 overexploitation of the oceans and prevent the destruction of their marine habitats - http://oceansnorth.org/

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 would like to sincerely thank the external press office of The Pew Charitable Trusts, the largest charitable foundation USA (Philadelphia). I have deep respect for the activities of the foundation, which stimulates civic activity, uses an analytical approach, and the power of knowledge to solve the most complex problems, including environmental problems of the World Ocean.

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

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

2. Is all this just another tool of soft power that US diplomacy is increasingly using in its Arctic policy, not only and not so much to preserve the environment, but with the aim of internationalizing the Arctic space? And the main thing that casts doubt on the sincerity of good intentions 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 completely understandable desire to listen to the opinion of lawyers on international maritime law and clarify the issue of the conceptual and legal definition of “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” are an enclave located outside the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of the Arctic states. However, outside the EEZ there may also be a continental Arctic shelf. What to do with the claims of Denmark, Canada, Russia to the North Pole in these international waters, and 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 is known, defines the legal status of the maritime spaces designated therein (territorial sea, contiguous zone, high seas, continental shelf), their limits (borders) for the purpose of establishing their legal regime. The national interests of Denmark, Canada, Russia, and Norway are currently being implemented on the completely legitimate basis of international maritime law. Except for the United States, which, as is known, has not ratified 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 international status, the legal regime of which is established by international law. Any Arctic state (Denmark, Iceland, Canada, Norway, Russia, USA, Finland, Sweden) on the basis of current international law can lay claim to a two-hundred-mile exclusive economic zone of the sea. Everything else is international waters. With an important exception: if it is unequivocally proven 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 Arctic countries have de facto established their own exclusive economic zones. Let's look at the maps and diagrams of which circumpolar water area of ​​the Arctic Ocean we are talking about and who lays claim to these spaces from the standpoint of the current 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

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 States of the Arctic region, the spread of their 200-mile zones and potential zones beyond 200 miles which these states may claim. Disputed regions between Canada, Denmark and Russia are highlighted in bold red. The diagram is taken from the website of the Durham University International Borders Research Center (IBRU, Durham University).

Within the exclusive economic zone, the coastal state is granted sovereign rights in relation to the exploration, development, conservation and management of natural resources located on the seabed, in its subsoil and in the overlying waters, as well as in relation to other activities for the purpose of economic exploration and development of the zone , such as energy production by using water, currents and wind.

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 (access date: 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 statuses 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, and 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 submits a corresponding application to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. And here comes a certain 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 its exclusivity, international laws are not written at all. There is power, why law in the Arctic? But they were concerned about the regulation of fishing: representatives of the US State Department supported the proposal of the 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.

Another characteristic detail of the declaration on the adoption of the International Arctic Agreement on Fisheries 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 Vessels from all over the world can start production at any time.” But this is just one of the possible forecasts of climate change in the Arctic and it will not happen tomorrow. "The object of extraction is here can be small arctic cod..." Yet again can be? "In the future also high probability distribution of other fish species...". “Stocks of Arctic cod or cod not studied »…

So, one can really first accept the project and determine specific steps (road map) for: 1) studying the reserves of biological resources of the Arctic Ocean under conditions of climate change (both warming and cooling); 2) development and discussion of an international legal mechanism controlling commercial fishing, taking into account the current UNCLOS (1982); 3) adoption and public discussion of options for the International Arctic Fisheries Agreement - the introduction of a voluntary moratorium on fishing on the high seas until the necessary scientific data on 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 resolved 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 a 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 applications of Denmark, Canada and Russia have been submitted and satisfied. And the US ratified UNCLOS (1982).

As for Russia, it would be logical to also 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 under discussion, their vision of protecting Russia’s national interests in the context of the internationalization of the Arctic space. We have already given “Kemskaya volost” and more than one.

It is very important for Russia at the present time to solve a very urgent environmental problem - to fully implement the program of general cleaning of the Russian Arctic from garbage from previous years. In the context of another freeze of the State Program for the socio-economic development of the Russian Arctic, versions of which have been unsuccessfully developed since 2009-2010, this is one of the few realistically feasible tasks today. And finally, adopt the long-suffering federal law on the Arctic zone in 2014 Russian Federation, the project of which took place in 2012-2013. public examination and received good feedback. This is within our power, otherwise it turns out that in our country, in fact, the borders of the Russian Arctic (AZRF) do not exist. What kind of national interests are there in the conditions of internationalization if we expose ourselves in this way, delaying ad infinitum the resolution of long-overdue issues on the borders of the Russian Arctic.

As conclusions it is necessary to emphasize once again that the problems of regulating fisheries 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 that are 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 with observer status: Great Britain, Germany, France, Poland, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, China, India, Singapore, South Korea, Japan. If we limit ourselves here only to the states included in the so-called. Arctic Five A5 (Denmark, Canada, Norway, Russia, USA), then will all decisions and agreements on the Arctic Ocean be observed in the future, will they ensure stability in the Arctic region and reduce the level of conflict?

In the Arctic, when conflict situations arise, the Arctic Ocean is absolutely necessary to resolve them. system batch approach . In light of all of the above, including the problems of determining the ownership of the continental shelf to a particular Arctic 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 Historical Sciences, Professor,
Chief Editor magazine "Arctic and North"

Kamil Bekyashev, Honored Scientist, Doctor of Law, Professor, Head of the Department of Moscow State Law Academy named after. O.E. Kutafina, vice-president of the Association of International Maritime Law.

Fisheries importance of the Arctic seas for Russia

The Arctic seas of the Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, Chukchi, Beaufort and Baffin seas are not yet available for Russian fisheries of great importance. In 2011, Russian fishermen caught more than 40 thousand 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 fisheries in the Arctic seas. Russia is a member of the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), which regulates fisheries 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 of the world. When we talk about an increase in average global temperature of 2 degrees, then for the Arctic this means 5 degrees, and in some places - up to 10. Rapid melting of ice could lead to the fact that by the end of the century polar bears will find themselves in a very difficult situation and most animals will die. On the other hand, a significant area of ​​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 high seas, with the ensuing consequences. The area of ​​this region is approximately 2.8 million km 2, which is equal to the area of ​​the Mediterranean Sea.

As noted by 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 Spitsbergen. 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 polar expeditions did not reach this area for 400 kilometers. But 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 can migrate in the Arctic Ocean in search of food, since they are pelagic species that move freely in the water column. If fish migrate to international waters, they argue, the situation changes because new international players who do not have access to similar resources elsewhere may become interested.

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

Due to severe ice conditions, the Arctic Ocean is one of the least explored marine areas. Today, when its surface is largely free of ice in the summer, it becomes easier to study its physical, chemical and biological conditions. The species composition of phyto- and zooplankton is critical for the migration of pelagic species, so studying its changes will facilitate the task of recording possible feeding migration into this area.

Fishery 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 potentials 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, territorial sea and adjacent zone 1998, on the continental shelf 1995. The basic principles of the Arctic policy in the field of fisheries are outlined: in the Maritime Doctrine of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020 5, Fundamentals public policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic for the period until 2020 and beyond 6, Strategy for the development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation and ensuring national security for the period until 2020 7.

All these documents were approved by the presidents of the Russian Federation, which emphasizes 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 until 2020 contains a section “Arctic regional direction”. The basis of the national maritime policy on in this direction is the creation of conditions for the activities of the Russian fleet (including fishing) 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 until 2020 and further prospects declared among the strategic priorities the development of the resource base of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation through the use of promising technologies. 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 until 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 provided for the preservation and development of the resource potential of fisheries 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 using the main commercial species of aquatic biological resources and the involvement of new ones in fishing objects. We especially note the provision of the Strategy, which provides for measures to prevent and suppress the 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 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. Hiliman, 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 heavy load on the ecosystem. The removal of prey fish or other ecosystem components may have an impact on other groups of species, such as marine mammals and birds. Without adequate scientific knowledge and monitoring, even relatively small commercial fisheries can lead to unintentional overfishing of the target species and undermine the economic integrity of the ecosystem. This circumstance may 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 seabirds.

Unregulated fishing in the central Arctic could also create a difficult political situation, scientists say. In the interests of the coastal Arctic states, especially Canada, Russia and the United States - the countries located closest to the new potential areas, limiting (and perhaps prohibiting) fishing by expeditionary fishing vessels of various states in the central part of the Arctic Ocean is essential. 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 for scientific research, management and control have been met and sustainable fishing can be achieved.

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 coastal Arctic countries should play a leading role in protecting the marine environment and its resources. These countries must cooperate closely with each other and other interested countries. The collaboration includes the collection of scientific data regarding the continental shelf, conservation of the marine environment and its living resources and other scientific topics.

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

On March 29, 2010, in the Ottawa suburb of Chelsea, the second ministerial meeting of the Arctic coastal states: Denmark, Canada, Norway, Russia and the United States took place. The meeting discussed the situation in the Arctic Ocean region and the Arctic as a whole in the light of new opportunities and new challenges arising from climate change and technology development. When discussing the problems of developing the natural resources of the Arctic Ocean, the 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 thing of the foreseeable future, negotiators discussed the need for further scientific study of the status and nature of fish stocks and their ecosystems in order to assess emerging trends and their consequences. “There is now an exemplary and comprehensive legal framework relating to the Arctic Ocean, and Arctic coastal states have a unique interest and role to play in current and future efforts to conserve and manage fish stocks in this region,” the meeting participants summarized.

A new future for the Russian Arctic

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is implementing a comprehensive project “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 a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions throughout the planet. Without a sharp reduction in emissions, the Arctic will have a very difficult time by mid-century.

The goal of the second direction is to minimize the negative impact of shipping in the Arctic. It is expected that the intensity of shipping 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 assistance in 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 are consistent with these measures.

The third area is eliminating the threats caused by oil and gas production, both today and in the future, which could threaten the Arctic if it is thoughtlessly “used.”

The fourth direction is fishing in the Arctic seas. These are particularly fragile ecosystems, and they must be treated with a special approach. The Russian Arctic, including the Barents and Bering Seas, is the most important area for domestic and global fisheries. It is home to one of the last remaining large stocks of Barents Sea cod and the most numerous species of cod - pollock. In addition to pollock, other types of fish are also well known to buyers: haddock, pollock, navaga, whiting and 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 – is taking care of specially protected natural areas: creating and supporting a system of specially protected natural areas; conservation of rare and endangered species; environmental education and public education.

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

US Arctic Policy

The Arctic policy of the United States in general and in relation to the enclave of the Arctic Ocean is defined in Law No. 110-243 “Joint Resolution Directing the United States of America to Initiate Discussions at the International Level and Take Actions Together with Other States aimed at the Preparation of an International Treaty on the Management of Reserves migratory fish and straddling fish stocks in the Arctic Ocean", which was adopted by the Congress at its 110th session on June 3, 2008. 9

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

This law notes that the decline of a number of commercially valuable fish stocks demonstrates 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 global change climatic regime can lead to an increase in water temperatures and, as a result, the emergence of new stable habitats suitable for habitation 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 ship mooring and navigation in the Arctic Ocean may lead to the emergence of favorable conditions for the beginning and development in this region commercial fishing.

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

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

The law further states that fisheries management to achieve sustainability requires all fisheries to be subject to established and scientifically based catch limits, periodic reporting of catch results, equitable access and distribution systems, and effective system monitoring and the possibility of enforcement to fulfill obligations.

The United States believes that migratory fish stocks move across national boundaries and the exclusive economic zones of fishing States and across the high seas, and as a result, sustainable fisheries for these species require 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 fisheries in the Arctic Ocean and management actions 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 extended to areas of the high seas;

— The United States should initiate international discussions and take steps, together with other Arctic states, to agree on a treaty or treaties for the management of migratory fish stocks and transboundary fish stocks of the Arctic Ocean, as well as to create a new international organization or organizations for the management of fisheries in the specified region;

— the agreement or agreements must comply with the requirements of the UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Species Stocks of 1995 and contain, among other things, mechanisms for determining catch limits and by-catch, distribution of fishing territory (areas), 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 a treaty or treaties and the implementation of measures consistent with the 1995 Fisheries Agreement, the United States is obligated to support efforts by the international community to prevent the expansion of commercial fishing into the open Arctic Ocean.

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

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

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

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

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

5) before the entry into force of the international treaty, a moratorium on fishing for biological resources in the open part of the Arctic Ocean must 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 the 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 sessions of the Russian-American Intergovernmental Advisory Committee on Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as the ICC). 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, warming in this region is occurring faster than in other parts of the planet, which suggests that the distribution of some commercial fish species to more northern areas will increase. The United States draws attention to the fact that there is no international agreement to regulate fisheries in the open Arctic Ocean and fishing vessels may begin 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 central part of the Arctic Ocean during Soviet times.

The US and Russia have common interests in the area. Accordingly, the United States proposed to work with Russia to develop a draft agreement and present it to the other three littoral states for discussion. The adoption of such a multilateral agreement will 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, China, and the EU to join it. The agreement will provide for the responsibility of participating countries for unauthorized fishing 10 .

At the 23rd session of the ICC 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 parties 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 adequate scientific understanding of how to fish there, and until a multilateral mechanism for such management has been established, and the US has proposed to conduct joint research in this area.

Russia's position

The Russian delegation stated that it attaches great importance to the issue of regulating fishing in the open part of the Arctic Ocean and shares the desire of the American side to avoid a 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 stated that a detailed commentary from 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 Arctic 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 from many countries are concerned about the current situation regarding the management of the resources of the Arctic Ocean. A vacuum has clearly emerged in the international legal status of the Arctic Ocean.

More than 2,000 scientists from 67 countries wrote an open letter to the international community demanding that they protect the Arctic Ocean by banning commercial fishing until research and regulation ensure the conservation of this fragile natural ecosystem.

Scientists recommend: a) reaching agreement on a precautionary approach to fisheries management in open regions of the Arctic; b) start with a zero production level and maintain 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 robust management, monitoring and enforcement system before fishing begins.

Melting ice, which reached record levels in 2007-2011, has whetted the appetites of not only gas and oil producers, but also fishing companies, attracted by the prospect of pristine natural resources and the lack of international regulation in the Arctic. "The scientific community this moment does not have sufficient biological data to assess the presence, abundance, structure, movements and condition of fish stocks and their role in the wider Arctic Ocean ecosystem,” the scientists wrote 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 livelihood 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 scientific research and the principle of caution.

So far, the true volumes of the region's fish resources are unknown. But as Louis Fortier, scientific director of Arctic Net, a research program at Laval University in Quebec City, points out, as ice gradually disappears, 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 risk that overfishing practices, which have led to the overexploitation of some large species and caused imbalances in marine ecosystems, will be carried into the Arctic,” Fortier said. “In the case of the North Pole, the situation will be even more devastating, since local fish stocks 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 become free of ice in the summer, including such areas that appeared beyond the zones of the USA, Canada and Russia in the waters of the western part of the American coast. Climate warming has caused the spread of some aquatic organisms in commercial quantities to the Chukchi, Kara and other seas, in which fishing was not previously developed. Warming also causes an increase in the biorace of some valuable commercial fish stocks, such as cod. This, in turn, intensifies competition for access to aquatic biological resources in the Arctic, both within the framework of multilateral and bilateral agreements. All these natural phenomena, indicate A.I. Glubokov and M.K. Glubokovsky, put several issues on the agenda, namely: a) on the international regulation of fishing in the Arctic seas, in which fishing had not previously taken place; b) about the result of the mechanism of international regulation of fishery 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 know of one draft of such an international legal document. In particular, in October 2011, the US State Department 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 organization or arrangement that may be created or established in specific purposes to manage such fisheries according to 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 established or established for the specific purpose of managing such fisheries.

The Parties will establish a joint scientific research program with a view to improving their understanding of the ecosystem of the area of ​​application of the Agreement and, in particular, with a view to determining the possibility of the existence in the Agreement area in the present or future of fish stocks that could be harvested on a sustainable basis through commercial fishing, and the possible impact of such fishing on the ecosystem.

The principle is Art. 5 of the project, which intends to determine the conditions for the participation of third countries in fishing in the central part of the Arctic Ocean.

Parties to the Agreement will encourage countries to take measures for their ships to comply with the requirements of the Agreement.

Parties to the Agreement must take measures consistent with international law aimed at preventing ships entitled to fly the flags of third countries not party to the Agreement from carrying out activities that would undermine the effectiveness of implementation of the provisions of the Agreement.

Freedom of the High Seas

By its legal status, the central part of the Arctic Ocean is the high seas, 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, freedom of the high seas, including freedom of fishing, is exercised in accordance with the conditions determined by this Convention and other rules of international law. These norms should be enshrined in a special convention, which can be called the “Convention on the Conservation of Living Marine Resources of the Central Arctic Ocean.”

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

1. All States, both coastal and non-coastal, are required to refrain from any activity related to the commercial exploitation of living marine resources until the Commission (see below), based on scientific research, has made a recommendation on fishing opportunities 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 participate in marine scientific research in the designated 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 Living Marine Resources of the Open Arctic Ocean and the Coordination of Marine Scientific Research. All decisions of the Commission are taken essentially by consensus.
5. Only States Parties to the Convention will have future rights to access fisheries resources.
6. The commission will be:

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

— encourage scientific assessment of reserves;

— a cooperation mechanism for effective monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement;

— ensure full 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 scope 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 economies rely heavily on the exploitation of living marine resources; the needs of coastal fishing communities (companies), which depend primarily on the fishing of the relevant stocks.
2. States that are not, for any reason, members of the Commission or parties to the Convention and do not give their consent to be such, are not exempt from the obligation to cooperate with the Commission and other states in conserving relevant resources and conducting scientific research.

Such State is obliged not to permit vessels flying its flag to engage in commercial fishing and to strictly comply with the conservation and management measures imposed by the Commission.

conclusions

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

1. See more: Russian Arctic: on the verge of disaster. M., 1996, p. 93-101.
2. See: Mikhailov A. At sea without rules. Fishing in areas freed from Arctic ice does not yet have a legal and scientific justification // Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 2013, January 23.
3. See: Loang H., Joseter H., Ingvaldsen R. Arctic – without fisheries? // 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 // Fish Resources, 2011, No. 2, p. 14-17; Zilanov V.K. New challenges to Arctic fisheries. On Sat. "International cooperation in the field of environmental protection, conservation and sustainable 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 archives of the Department of the Russian Fisheries Agency).
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 archives of the Department of the Russian Fisheries Agency).
12. See for more details: Glubokov A.I., Glubokovsky M.K. International legal regulation of fisheries in the Arctic seas. In the book: The Arctic: a zone of peace and cooperation. M., 2011, p.103.
13. Highliman S. Preventing unregulated high seas fishing in 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.

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

The parties to the agreement are not entirely sure that fishing in the high-latitude Arctic - covered with ice, despite climate change - will ever become a reality. However, calling this a anticipation of future disagreements, they began to talk 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 Arctic states, and until regulatory measures are established , said the head of the Russian delegation, deputy head of the Federal Fisheries Agency, in an interview with TASS Vasily Sokolov. — This is precisely the prevention of unregulated fishing. Not “illegal,” because there are no rules in this area yet, but unregulated.”

Russian interest

The draft agreement was prepared over the course of two years. As reported IA REGNUM, in July 2015 in Oslo, the five coastal countries (Russia, USA, Norway, Canada and Denmark) signed the Declaration on the Prevention of Unregulated Fishing on the High Seas. The Arctic states have vowed to fish in the region until the scientific community has a clear and reliable understanding of the resource potential of 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 the thawed Arctic being enriched with fish in the future. But despite this, America insisted on the speedy 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 country that owns the largest Arctic economic zone, has repeatedly stated that coastal states should have priority in decision-making under the agreement. Rosrybolovstvo has repeatedly emphasized that reserves in the central part of the Arctic will appear not from somewhere else, 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 lot of reasons for dissatisfaction with the previous versions of the project; there was even a question of premature withdrawal from the agreement. But the fear of losing (so far illusory) benefits forced the Russian side to continue negotiations, as a result of which almost all claims were eliminated.

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

“Since there were concerns that some country or countries would block decisions, for example on the start of 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. 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 pleased environmental organizations. “We welcome this agreement as the first step towards creating[in the Arctic] a full-fledged territory with international protected status, and we call on you to agree once again in 16 years on an indefinite ban on both commercial fishing and mining activities.”, - said John Burgwald, expert of the regional department Greenpeace Nordic.

But, to be precise, environmental organizations are celebrating a victory that, by and large, does not exist: no one knows what will happen to the Arctic ice in 16 years, but if fish leave en masse for the North Pole, the agreement will be revised. According to the deputy chairman of Rosrybolovstvo, “either measures will be developed within the framework of the agreement, or regulation will begin to be carried out by some fishery organization”.

For all countries party to the agreement, fishing is an important part of the economy. IA REGNUM previously reported that a tenth of Iceland's economy is directly linked to fishing, a figure that rises to almost 20% when related industries are included. By the way, Iceland is already benefiting from climate change: valuable fish species that were previously afraid of too cold water have begun to appear in its waters. First of all, we are talking about mackerel, which was a rare species in Iceland until 2000, but today is one of the country's most commercially important fish. In 2016, mackerel was the third most-caught fish in Iceland, generating $103 million in sales for the country.