The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the

European Union
Research proposal

Alejandro Olmos i Marcitllach

December, 2008

Word count: 3.410

 The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i Marcitllach

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Cristina Leston-Bandeira and Proffessor Lord Norton whose support
was essential to gain the chance of being placed in the European Parliament.

Thanks also to Gary Titley MEP for first encouraging me to focus the research in the
very exciting topic of the EU-Arctic relations. To Stewart Arnolds for arranging the
interview with Diana Wallis MEP and the presentation with Jaime Reynolds - who
contributed to this study by providing the expertise viewpoint. To Hossain Kamrul for
organising a fantastic conference and taking into consideration the ideas presented in this
paper.

Finally, big thanks to Madlen Haupt for her indispensable help with reading,
checking and correcting the following text.

December 2008,

Alejandro Olmos i Marcitllach

2
 The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i Marcitllach

Index

1. Introduction p.5

1.1. The Arctic Region p.5

1.2. The Arctic Region and the EU p.5

1.3. The Arctic Governance p.6

1.3.1 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea p.6

1.3.2 The Arctic Council p.7

1.3.3 The Nordic Dimension p.7

1.4 The Clash of EU interests with other stakeholders p.8

1.4.1 Canada p.9

1.4.2 United States of America p.9

1.4.3. Russia p.9

1.4.4 Norway p.10

1.4.5 Denmark p.10

2. Research hypothesis p.11

2.1. The importance of the legitimacy question p.11

2.2. Three different sources of legitimacy p.11

3. Objectives and research methodology p.12

3
 The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i Marcitllach

List of Abbreviations

MEP Member of the European Parliament

US United States of America

IPPC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ACIA Arctic Climate Impact Assesment

EU European Union

EC European Commission

DG Mare EC’s Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

UNCLOS The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

UK United Kingdom

AEPS Environmental Protection Strategy

DG ENVI European Commission's Environment Directorate-General

4
 The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i Marcitllach

1. Introduction

1.1 The Arctic Region

According to the US Geological Survey report1 the Arctic conceals over 20 % of the
world’s undiscovered gas and oil resources. Over the past 50 years, its air
temperature has increased by twice the global average2, with 2007 as the warmest
year on record for the Arctic3 and the lowest level of sea ice in modern history4. On
15 September 2007, the Arctic ice cap was 22% below the last record set in 2005.
This 2007 record exceeded the computer model predictions used to prepare the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report
(AR4) in 2007. Perhaps even more important than ice-coverage as such, is the
increasing percentage of first-year sea-ice. Indeed In 2004 the (ACIA) Arctic Climate
Impact Assessment study5 did forecast a 7 Celsius degrees temperature rise by the end of the
present century and other studies do work with the hypothesis that by 2040 the
Arctic Ocean will be ice-free during the summer months.

1.2 The Arctic Region and the EU

Due to the ice melting, the Northern Sea route has been navigable for the first time
since last year6. Thus, according to the EU Fisheries and maritime Affairs
Commissioner Joe Borg, speaking last September to a Conference of the Nordic
Council in Ilulissat, Greenland could offer a “first time opportunity”7 to use new
trade routes and massive energetic resources. Exploitation of these resources was
of great interest for Europe and ensuring its equal access would be a top priority for
the Commission. Nonetheless, this situation will raise undoubtedly other increasing
concerns.

In March 2008 the EU’s chief of foreign policy, Javier Solana, distributed a
statement on the security implications of Climate Change to the members of the EU
Council8. Among other things, this paper titled ‘Climate Change and International
Security’ highlighted the upcoming issues caused by the Arctic melting such as sea-
level rises, new migratory flows, territorial disputes and political radicalisation.
Overall, opportunities and risks in which’s management the EU certainly wants to
have a say.

1
U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008-3049, Kenneth J. Bird, Ronald R. Charpentier, Donald L. Gautier (CARA Project Chief), David W.
Houseknecht, Timothy R. Klett, Janet K. Pitman, Thomas E. Moore, Christopher J. Schenk, Marilyn E. Tennyson, and Craig J. Wandrey; Edited by
Peter H. Stauffer. Washington, 2008.
2
Arctic Report Card 2008, J. Richter-Menge, J. Overland, M. Svoboda, J. Box, M.J.J.E. Loonen, A. Proshutinsky, V. Romanovsky, D. Russell, C.D.
Sawatzky, M. Simpkins, R. Armstrong, I. Ashik, L.-S. Bai, D. Bromwich, J. Cappelen, E. Carmack, J. Comiso, B. Ebbinge, I. Frolov, J.C. Gascard, M.
Itoh, G.J. Jia, R. Krishfield, F. McLaughlin, W. Meier, N. Mikkelsen, J. Morison, T. Mote, S. Nghiem, D. Perovich, I. Polyakov, J.D. Reist, B. Rudels,
U. Schauer, A. Shiklomanov, K . Shimada, V. Sokolov, M. Steele, M.-L. Timmermans, J. Toole, B. Veenhuis, D. Walker, J. Walsh, M. Wang, A.
Weidick, C. Zöckler. 2008
3
Cfr. Footnote 2
4
Fetterer, F., and K. Knowles. 2002, updated 2008. Sea ice index. Boulder, CO: National Snow and Ice. Data Center. Digital media.
5
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment - Scientific Report. Jim Berner, Terry V. Callaghan, Shari Fox and others. 2005, Cambridge University Press
6
Northeast and Northwest Passages Both Free of Ice, 08/28/2008, Die Spiegel.
7
The Arctic: a matter of concern to us all. Speech by Commissioner Joe Borg at the Conference: "Common Concern for the Arctic", Ilulissat,
Greenland, 9 September 2008
8
Report 7249/08 of the Council of the European Union, on Climate change and international security by the Commission and the Secretary-
General/High Representative. March 2008.
5
 The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i Marcitllach

Additionally, the EU is developing its Arctic policy as part of its newly adopted
integrated maritime policy wherein the Commission (DG Mare) promises to produce
9
a report “on strategic issues relating to the Arctic Ocean” within the year 2008.

Earlier last year Diana Wallis, vice President of the European Parliament, addressed
the Standing Committee of the Parliamentarians with the topic of the Arctic Region.
She argued10 that it was time to go one step further than the so called Arctic
Window of the Northern Dimension in the EU involvement in the Arctic. Her speech
took a view which was adopted later on by others within the EU: There is no need
for new environmental legislation but for a better coordination within new
frameworks.

A recently published European Commission’s communication11 aims to define the

role that the EU wants to play in the future of the region.

The communication calls for measures such as the creation of new research
infrastructure, screening and monitoring of chemicals, increased cooperation on
prevention, preparedness and disaster response, engagement of Arctic indigenous
peoples in a regular dialogue, extension of existing regulatory framework on
fisheries to the Arctic, improvement of maritime surveillance, the setting of a
regulatory framework on fishing for the part of the Arctic high seas not yet covered
by an international regime of conservation and management, promoting full
implementation of the existing rules and enhancing environmental and safety
standards of the International Maritime Organisation or enhancing Arctic
multilateral governance. However it does not take up the Parliament’s call12 to open
international negotiations designed to lead to the adoption of an international
treaty.

1.3 The Arctic Governance

1.3.1 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

The case of the Arctic governance is complex and unique. The United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)13, ratified by more than 150
countries14, is currently the most accepted arrangement that rules the handling of
the Arctic Region. The Convention contains three relevant points: it allows
signatories to develop special legislation to protect ice-covered water, appoints a
competent authority (International Seabed Authority) with capacity to sanction
unlawful exploration and mining and delimits an Exclusive Economic Zone for the
boundary states.
9
The adopted integrated maritime policy states in section 4.4. that “[a]ttention will also be given to the geopolitical implications of climate change. In
this context, the Commission will present in 2008 a report on strategic issues relating to the Arctic Ocean”. See at http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0575:FIN:EN:PDF.
10
Speech by Diana Wallis MEP, Vice-President of the European Parliament, at the Standing Committee of the Parliamentarians of the Arctic
Region,Rovaniemi Finland 28th February 2008
11
Communication, COM(2008) 763, The European Union and the Arctic Region, from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council.
December 2008, Brussels.
12
European Parliament resolution, P6_TA(2008)0474, of 9 October 2008 on Arctic governance.
13
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982
14
Consolidated Table recapitulating the status of the Convention and of the related Agreements, as at 7 November 2008.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/status2008.pdf . Acceded November 2008.
6
 The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i Marcitllach

Under the UNCLOS the coastal states (Canada, Russia, Norway, Denmark and USA)
have ten years from its ratification on to make claims to extend its 200 miles
exclusive economic zone. The UN LOS Convention also recognizes the sovereignty
of a coastal state over its internal waters, archipelagic waters and territorial sea,
the airspace above and its bed and subsoil. Sovereignty entails exclusive access
and control of living and non-living resources and all-encompassing jurisdiction over
all human activities, unless states have in one way or another consented to
restrictions thereon.15

But even if no country owes by itself the North Pole or the surrounding Arctic Ocean
there are institutional frameworks that attempt to govern it.

1.3.2 The Arctic Council

The Arctic Council is an intergovernmental body that brings together

representatives of indigenous communities and fourteen nations, of which eight
(Canada – in representation of the Northwest territories, Nunavut and Yukon,
Denmark – in representation of the autonomies of Greenland and the Faroe Islands,
United States – in representation of the State of Alaska, Sweden, Russia, Norway,
Iceland and Finland) are full members and six observers (the UK in representation
of the country of Scotland, Spain, Poland, Netherlands, Germany and France) who
16
are increasingly demanding a better position in the Council . However the Council
not only lacks binding powers but also a permanent secretariat with full-time
dedicated stuff.

Previously, the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS, 1991) was

established by the so called A5 (the group of five countries that encircle the North
Pole) plus Iceland, Finland and Sweden as a cooperation forum to identify the
environmental threats that these states face. More importantly the AEPS holds a
number of expertise working groups such as the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment
Programme or the Conservation of the Arctic Flora and Fauna.

Two years later, in 1993, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and the
European Commission together with Russia established the Barents Euro-Arctic
Council. The BEAC, given that Canada and the US are only observating members,
mainly attempts to strengthen the cooperation between the EU and Russia by
incorporating Russia in a multilateral body for the first time after the breakdown of
the Soviet Union.

The Council of the Baltic Sea States and the Nordic Council of Ministers are as well
two additional relevant regional Councils. However to investigate the history of the
EU-Russia involvement in the area we have to turn to the Northern Dimension.

1.3.3 The Nordic Dimension

The Finish and Swedish accession to the EU in 1991 substantially increased the
Northern presence of the Union. The meeting of the European Council in December
1997 (Luxembourg) sketched for the first time17 the Northern Dimension
framework. Only one year later, in Vienna, the European Council adopted a

15
Cfr. Footnote 14
16
See at http://www.barentsobserver.com/non-arctic-countries-want-membership-in-arctic-council.4516094-16174.html.
17
Presidency Concussions of the Luxembourg European Council, 12-13 December 1997
http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/032a0008.htm. Acceded November 2008
7
 The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i Marcitllach

Commission Communication calling to settle a “Northern Dimension for the policies

of the Union”. It was under the German and Finish presidencies of the Union a year
later when the concept was specified and a Ministerial Conference on the topic was
held. In 2000, at the Feira meeting of the Council, an Action Plan18 based on a
document drafted by the European Commission with the guidelines for the
implementation of the Nordic Dimension was adopted.

At the 2002 ministerial meeting in Luxembourg the guidelines for a Second

Northern Dimension Action Plan were adopted, which were impulse by the Danish
government at the ministerial meeting held in Illulisaat, Greenland.

One year later the second Nordic Dimension Action Plan was adopted. Built on
these first Action Plans, the 2007 declaration established a permanent tool shared
by its members - Norway, Iceland, the Russian Federation and the European
Commission - that aims to “reaffirm their responsibility for the prosperity of
Northern Europe, its sustainable development and the well-being of its
population”19. It intends to make the best of the rich potential of the region and to
avoid new dividing lines in Europe by addressing its challenges as the living
standards disparities. However the Nordic Dimension policy, with special regard to
North West Russia, is mainly an economic cooperation and integration body seeking
to maximise the human and financial resources in the region on the basis of the
subsidiary principle between national and regional authorities.

Nevertheless, the Nordic Dimension also focuses on the areas of a) Freedom,

Security and Justice, b) External Security and c) Research, education and culture.
In addition, two partnerships – the Northern Environmental Partnership and the
Northern Dimension Partnership in Public Health and Social Well Being – work as
institutional cooperation frameworks within the Nordic Dimension.

The climate change and the melting of the Arctic are becoming recently new core
topics of this complex relationship. In this context we find the above mentioned
Arctic Window, a political space within the Nordic Dimension designed for the
cooperation between the EU and the Arctic States.

1.4 The clash of EU interests with other stakeholders

Certainly further involvement/commitment of the EU in the Arctic is generally

welcomed by its member states and other regional stakeholders. However, even if
the EU has a long track involving other countries in regional as proved in the
previous section, some voices suggest that there is an increasing risk of a potential
clash of interests in the area.

According to some scholars20 the increasing importance of the region in terms of

geopolitics and geo-economics could lead to the emergence of a new “great game”.
Indeed when last year a Russian expedition placed a titanium Russian flag on the
seabed under the North Pole, many observers feared the beginning of an increasing
militarisation of the Arctic region.

18
Presidency Conclusions of the Santa Maria de Feira European Council, 19-20 June 2000.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/fei1_en.htm Acceded November 2008
19
Political Declaration on the Northern Dimension Policy, Joint Press Release on the IV Northern Dimension Ministerial Meeting, 2007.
20
I.e. As the Arctic ice retreats, the old Great Game begins to boil over, Ben Macintyre, The Times, February 11 2006, London
8
 The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i Marcitllach

1.4.1 Canada

Canada responded to the above mentioned events with the mobilization of a vast
military contingent in order to be ready for any possible challenge to Canada’s
sovereignty in the area. Nevertheless Ottawa is not only concerned about the
protection of its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). A major issue is the Northwest
maritime passage, given the fact that it is becoming ice-free and both the EU and
the US do not recognise Canada’s sovereignty over the route21.

However, Canada interest in the area, as most of the other regional actors, is nothing new.
Back in 1909 Canada accused Inuits of murdering members of a Polar expedition;
as a consequence of this Ottawa self extended its jurisdiction and consequently
claimed territorial rights in the North Pole. Since then Canada has been one of the
most active players in the region.

1.4.2 United States of America

The case of the United States is a quite particular one. Although its first claim over
the Arctic dates back to a legal request in 1924 over the coastline of Alaska,
Washington is the only Arctic Coastal state that did not ratify the UNCLOS. Recently
former President George W. Bush called for the ratification of the treaty22 as many
advisers argued, the US should claim the extension of its EEZ and take part in
future negotiations – especially regarding Russia’s recent moves in the area.

Presumably the incoming American President Barack Obama will follow this line
towards a multilateral cooperation. However some observers remain sceptical as
the Senate could again decline the ratification of the UNCLOS expressing concerns
about the limitations that the UNCLOS could impose on the US freedom of actions.

In the same way that Canada did, the United States reacted on the Russian
expedition that placed a flag in the North Pole. In August a bill was passed
conceding $8 billion in order to increase the number of Coast Guard officers and
soldiers in the Arctic surroundings.

1.4.3 Russia

We have already mentioned some of the consequences of the expedition to the

Lomonosov Ridge, which Moscow considers as an extension of the continental
platform of Siberia. But the real implication of the expedition in 2007 led by the
Vice Speaker of the Russian Duma, Artur Chilingarov, is the informal claim of the
sovereignty over 45% of the Arctic which Russia is determined to obtain by any
means.

21
U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, during the U.S. Strategy in the Arctic: Energy, Security, and the Geopolitics of the High 3orth conference organised
by Center for Strategic & International Studies on July 23, 2008.
22
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21131181/ Acceded December 2008
9
 The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i Marcitllach

However other disputes need to be resolved earlier. In 2001 Russia requested the
United Nations under the UNCLOS to extend the limits of the Continental Shelf23
that would lead to an extension of its EEZ as well.

1.4.4 Norway

It is precisely with Norway that Russia maintains one if its most litigious relations.
Despite of the 1920’s Treaty of Paris24 which gave sovereignty to Oslo over the
Spitsbergen Island in the Svaldbard archipelago, Russia still claims the right to
develop economic and trade activities in the area. Although it is expected that the
UN Commission will reach a compromise between both nations, it is also expected
that it will still require a hard battle in the near future, especially due to the fact
that this 176,000 square kilometre area could be the key to an enormous future
hydrocarbon production.

1.4.5 Denmark

Also Denmark is currently involved in disputes with Russia regarding the territorial
sovereignty of certain areas of the Arctic. In 2007 an expedition was sent to stock
up evidences that the Lomonosov Ridge is indeed a natural extension of Greenland.

Denmark is as well one of the few neighbours seeking stronger regional

cooperation. However the Copenhagen government organised an Arctic Conference
in which only the A5 countries were present. Despite of the recent referendum in
which Greenland gained more autonomy25, Denmark is often discordant with EU
policies given the particular necessities of the local communities of Greenland.

Due to all these divergent interests metioned above, any European moves usually
raise the suspicion of other stakeholders, which often regard them as an attempt to
unilaterally introduce new regulation in the area. Under these circumstances the
question is raised: Does the European Union has any legitimacy to adopt its own
policies regarding the Arctic? And if so, where does this legitimacy end?

23
On December 20, 2001, Russia Submitted to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) in accordance with Article 76(8) of
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
24
Treaty concerning the Archipelago of Spitsbergen, and Protocol, Paris, 9 February 1920
25
A non-binding referendum on Greenland's autonomy was held on 25 November 2008
10
 The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i Marcitllach

Research hypothesis

2.1 The importance of the legitimacy question

26
The classical analysis by Max Webber distinguished between two kinds of
legitimacy in politics, substantive and procedural. This implies that the acts of a
government can be legitimated either for what they achieve (substantive) or for
how they are achieved (procedural).

Although an abstract concept, political legitimacy is of high importance to the

policy-making process. As professor Christopher Lord from the Leeds University
argues27 “[…]legitimacy concerns to the acceptability of policy to the public. It,
therefore, goes to the heart of whether institutions of government can get their
way. Without widely agreed views of who has a right to make public-binding
decisions, when and how, governing bodies find it difficult to achieve the un-forced
cooperation of citizens. Furthermore when talking about the EU policy-making
process each level of government –supranational, national and sub-national- is
increasingly implicated in the legitimacy of each other.”

Given that, despite of the recently announced intentions of Iceland28 to join the EU,
none of the current EU Member States are costal states respect to the Arctic Ocean
(since Greenland chose in the mid 1980’s to withdraw from the EEC); there are
several reasons to expect legitimacy to be a tough problem for the EU in developing
its Arctic-related policies.

However through the following pages we will consider and analyse three different
groups of factors that provide either substantial or procedural legitimacy. And
therefore eventually it will be argued that the EU is indeed a fully legitimated actor
in the process of the Arctic-related-policies.

2.2 Three different sources of legitimacy

Firstly we will examine the existing legislation on trade, defence and environmental
preservation as well as the current policy framework for the EU-Arctic relations.
Given that the competence on environmental protection is currently shared
between the EU (EC) and its member states we will search for national, subnational
and supranational elements. By reviewing the history of the EU – Arctic relationship
we will present the current involvement of the EU in the Arctic region as a logic
consequence of its own evolution.

Later we will contemplate the EU as an interested part in future scenarios. This will
be a threefold approach as we will study the risks (EU as an involuntary affected
regional actor), opportunities (EU as an international player in a global scenario)
and responsibilities (EU as a global polluter) faced in the changing Arctic region.

Finally we will focus on the democratic mandate by the citizens of the European
Union expressed through the European Parliament.

26
Legitimacy, Democracy and the EU: when abstract questions become practical policy problems, page 1, Dr. Christopher Lord, Universty of Leeds,
1998
27
Legitimacy, Democracy and the EU: when abstract questions become practical policy problems, page 3, Dr. Christopher Lord, Universty of Leeds,
1998
28
On 30 October 2008, Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir, minister of education said that "Iceland has to define its long-term national interests and part
of that is a revision of the currency regime, including a possible EU application". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland_and_the_European_Union.
Acceded, December 2008
11
 The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i Marcitllach

3. Objectives and Research Methodology

The overall aim of this paper is to analyse the legitimacy of the Arctic related
policies of the European Union and to estimate the future scenarios for the EU –
Arctic relations. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to critically analyse the
status quo of the European Union involvement in the Arctic region, to identify the
current challenges of this relationship and to draw conclusions with respect to the
future.

In order to achieve these goals the research was based on both primary and
secondary data.

Given the polyhedric nature of the topic, it was necessary to study a wide range of
written documents on the different aspects are relevant for the research. Not only
books but academic journals and publications authorised by national governments,
policy platforms, nongovernmental organisations and European institutions were
taken into account.

For example, while quantitative data from governmental and intergovernmental

agencies was used to measure the impact of climate change on the Arctic region,
publications authorised by environmentalist nongovernmental organisations such as
the WWF helped to acquire a better understanding of its consequences.

In this regard we need to state that the EU’s transparency with offers, despite of its
bad reputation, the possibility to publicly access all its working documents was a
cornerstone of the research.

However due to the lack of literature answering to the very concrete dilemma
presented in this research, it was very useful to read literature on other cases
where similar questions on the EU’s competence were raised.

Furthermore, given the high profile of this topic within the current political agenda,
several seminars and events around the topic were held over the past months in
Brussels and Strasbourg. The attendance to some of these events was extremely
useful for the research as it granted access to primary information on the ongoing
negotiations. Additionally it also offered a unique opportunity for the understanding
of the policy decision making process.

A good example of this was the ‘petite comité’ briefing (Brussels, 4th November
2008) prior to the publication of the Commission’s communication on the Arctic by
Jaime Reynolds of DGENVI (EC’s Directorate General responsible for environment)
that Stewart Arnold arranged for the Hull University students placed in Brussels.

In a different seminar (Brussels, 18th November 2008) organised by the European

Policy Centre, János Herman, also from DGENVI, explained Commission’s core
proposals and its viewpoint on why the EU is “natural and legitimate player”. This
seminar also provided an excellent opportunity to get an idea about the main concerns of
other stakeholders. For example, whilst the Norway’s Ambassador to the European Union, Oda
Helen Sletnes, welcomed more EU involvement; Lars Vesterbirk, Counsellor of the
Representation of Greenland to the European Union, was very critic with the EU’s
involvement. According to him it only resulted from the new opportunities to access new
transportation routes and hydro-carbon fields.

12
 The legitimacy of the Arctic related policies of the European Union, by Alejandro Olmos i Marcitllach

A very different perspective, the economical one, was presented (Brussels, 18th November
2008) by the Centre for European Policy Studies study on “defining the financial
architecture of the new international climate change regime”.

Only two days later the first meeting of the PSE (Socialist Group in the European
Parliament) on the Arctic took place in Strasbourg.

Probably the highest pitch of the research was the experts workshop hosted by the
Stichting University on the 4th and 5th of December. This two-day seminar aimed to
understand and strengthen the EU-Canada Relation in the Law of the Sea and
Ocean Governance. Twenty-nine experts highlighted areas of convergence and
divergence of interests and practices. Those uses include: aquaculture, fisheries,
shipping, bio-diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, renewable energy
production (for example, offshore wind farms and tidal power), seabed activities
(minerals and hydrocarbons) and ocean disposal.

Finally in December an in-depth interview with Diana Wallis was conducted. This
was the starting point of a series of interviews that will take place between
December 2008 and January 2009 with a number of Liberal, Socialist, Conservative
and Green Members of the European Parliament. These interviews aim to identify
the different political approaches towards the EU-Arctic relations.

13