|
Climate change and carbon logic dictates that further oil exploration should halt. In order to keep to United Nations estimates for ecological limits for climate change, the world cannot afford to burn more than a quarter of known fuel reserves1. To explore for more oil in these circumstances contradicts all notions of sanity. Heinz Rothermund of Shell describes it as a ‘dilemma’. This ‘dilemma’ exists off Britain’s shores but it is also a global problem. Indeed, there are over 15 current cases* of international maritime disputes involving rights to exploit oil and/or natural gas: arguments over a resource that we cannot afford to use. One such case is the Atlantic Frontier, the centre of a complicated territorial dispute involving Denmark, Ireland, Iceland and the UK. Others are described in the case studies below. Although the ‘Atlantic Frontier’ dispute has been going on for over 20 years, it has not received a great deal of attention: the argument has, for the most part, taken place quietly between diplomats, and behind closed doors. Nevertheless it is of considerable significance in terms of the management of resources, environmental protection and notions of global security. Its resolution could be a precedent for settling similar disputes around the globe, some of which are considerably more severe (eg Spratly Islands and Caspian Sea - see below). It is an opportunity for the new British Government to show leadership on the international climate issue, for example at the forthcoming United Nations General Assembly Special Session on the environment. The most likely (partial) resolution of the Atlantic Frontier dispute will involve a series of bilateral agreements resulting in the carving-up and joint exploitation of the area. This type of resolution for resource conflicts is not environmentally sustainable. Furthermore, as ecosystem degradation increases pressure on society world-wide, any notions of a post-Cold War security will be undermined by global temperature change leading to climate instability. At a time when climate change impacts are discernible sustainable conflict resolution requires agreement not to exploit. This will add the needed impetus for truly sustainable development and the transfer of technologies to meet people’s needs.
The Atlantic Frontier disputes involve a multilateral conflict of territorial claims in the Rockall Plateau region of the North East Atlantic. Continental shelf claims include two large areas of trilateral overlap (Denmark/Iceland/UK and Denmark/Ireland/Iceland) and three areas of bilateral overlap (Denmark/ Iceland, Ireland/Iceland and Iceland/UK). To compound the conflict, all three other parties dispute UK fishery zone claims in the area, especially Rockall’s ‘right’ to generate a 200 nautical mile fishery zone. The use of St Kilda and other small offshore features as basepoints has also been questioned. Thus far there has been no attempt for the parties to agree to talk together. There have, of course, been bilateral negotiations, but certainly no four-way talks. In 1980 Iceland did indicate a willingness to consider arbitration on its continental shelf boundary with Denmark, but this suggestion does not appear to have been followed up. No party appears has shown an intention to submit the dispute to an international tribunal for resolution. There appears to be too much to lose. Under the current way of managing international affairs, if the Atlantic Frontier dispute is resolved at all it is most likely that it will be through a series of bilateral agreements for boundary delimitation and/or joint exploitation.3 This would come about once more information on the economic value of the area’s resources is revealed and a point is reached where one or more of the participants perceive an imperative to seize the initiative. That time appears to be drawing closer. The Atlantic Frontier is a focus of the oil industry’s current expansion: over 30 oil companies are involved, led by BP and Shell. It is being used as an opportunity to test new technology that can be applied to exploit similar deep-water oil resources in other parts of the world. The British Geological Survey is currently carrying out a major and commercially confidential survey of the Rockall Continental Margin funded largely by oil companies.4 Whilst this process will establish temporary alliances allowing a carve-up and exploitation to take place, it is unlikely to lead to an equitable solution for all parties.
The Spratly Islands is a loose term often used to describe over 170 small islands, banks and shoals in the South China Sea that have been called the most contested real estate on the planet. The Spratly disputes include conflicts over sovereignty and jurisdiction, inflamed by a lack of clarity in the international legal definition of islands and by historical animosity, as well as the possible presence of oil and gas (so far neither has been found in significant quantities). They involve Brunei, the People’s Republic of China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. The sovereignty disputes became more heated during the oil and gas expansion into Asia during the late 1960s and early 1970s when People’s Republic of China began offshore oil exploration. From this period on, numerous claims, counter-claims, island occupations and occasional battles occurred. In 1988, the Vietnamese attempted to disrupt the construction of a Chinese base on Fiery Cross Reef (Yongshu Jiao, Chu Thap, Kalingan). The ensuing battle resulted in 75 Vietnamese killed. Despite a number of meetings and declarations to resolve the disputes peacefully, tensions in the area remain high mainly due to oil and gas developments. In May 1992, China signed an oil deal with the US-based Crestone company. A year later, Vietnam offered exploration licences for the same area. Also in 1993, a PRC seismic vessel surveyed Vietnamese-claimed blocks disturbing the seismic surveys being carried out by a consortium led by BP. This type of provocation remains the norm. One of the more serious incidents was the 1995 Chinese occupation of Mischief Reef (Meiji Jiao, Vanh Khan, Panganiban) which lies at the heart of Philippine-claimed territory contracted to Alcorn. As recently as May 1997, China and the Philippines clashed when PRC ships conducted a marine survey in waters claimed by both countries.6 Since the mid-1990s foreign oil companies have been the willing pawns in this dangerous chess game. Companies involved include Alcorn, BP, Conoco, Crestone, and Mobil. The only significant progress so far has been made on a bilateral level. Although informal multilateral talks have been held, proposals to set aside sovereignty issues in favour of joint development arrangements have made little headway.
The Caspian Sea is the world’s largest inland water body covering 370,000km2. It is surrounded by Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Azerbaijan, and Russia. Its unique and fragile environment, home to the Beluga sturgeon, is being threatened by industrial pollution and the water level is rising fast, leading to salinity changes and flooding. Also under threat is the region’s fledgling tourist industry. The Caspian Sea is also host to large oil and gas fields8 and is predicted to be a major world production area to feed a growing demand for Asian countries and possibly Western markets. New oil and gas deposits are still being discovered. Since the break up of the Soviet Union, the international oil industry has been quick to involve itself, lured by the prospect of expanding existing fields and the attractive terms offered by states wishing to attract badly needed investment. A Kazakhstan consortium involves Agip, British Gas, BP, Mobil, Shell, Statoil and Total. An Azerbaijan consortium led by BP also involves Amoco, Pennzoil, SOCAR (Azerbaijan state oil company) and Lukoil (Russia’s largest oil company). The resource conflict has been exacerbated by the emergence of new states since the break up of the Soviet Union. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan argue that the sea should be carved into sectors. Russia, which would lose out in terms of hydrocarbons resources in such a move, disputes this approach declaring that the Law of the Sea should not apply to this inland sea. Instead, it has argued that joint sovereignty and joint development should prevail. The uncertainty of post-Soviet Union geopolitics of the region is compounded by US insistence that international sanctions on Iran prevent its involvement. This has led Iran to seek cooperation deals with Russia.9 Russia and Iran have cited environmental protection imperatives to add weight to their call for joint sovereignty and control over the sea’s resources. Given the high economic stakes, it is unlikely that this complicated dispute will be resolved in the near future. Meanwhile, environmental degradation continues apace. One compromise suggestion would be to establish a joint regime for environmental management. Sovereignty questions can be settled at a later date. A number of precedents for this type of approach have been set, including a 1973 Argentina-Uruguay agreement over the mouth of the Rio de la Plata.10
Principle 25 of the Rio Declaration declared that ‘Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.’ The post-Cold War order of resolving conflict by carving-up resources is not sustainable because of increasing scarcity of resources and an increasingly degrading environment. Even the resources fought over cannot be exploited in a sustainable way. Clearly something has to change. It is the responsibility of developed countries to set an example. If developed States continue to squabble over rights to exploit an environmentally unsustainable resource, why should others act differently? It is a global recipe for disaster. Instead of assuming that benefits to humankind accrue from exploitation of our common heritage, the real benefits to be shared result from non-exploitation: a stable climate; a protected marine environment; avoidance of disputes; transfer of environmental technologies and more. Antarctica, which is protected through a regime of joint non-development, provides a precedent. In this year of important decisions on climate at the Kyoto talks, and in the year of a major review of the global environmental governance five years post-Rio and 25 years after Stockholm, with the 1998 UN Year of the Oceans, it is time for political leaders of industrial countries to recognise and adopt the principle of joint non-development of fossil fuel resources.
For More Information contact: Rick Le Coyte, Greenpeace UK, 0171 865 8253
* If one included all individual cases of continental shelf overlap such as the South China Sea, Gulf of Thailand and the Atlantic Frontier, the figure would be some 20-30.
|