Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

March 30, 2010 – August 7, 2024 R41153

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Updated August 7, 2024

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

R41153

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service

Summary

The diminishment of Arctic sea ice has led to increased human activities in the Arctic, and has heightened interest in, and concerns about, the region’s future. The United States, by virtue of Alaska, is an Arctic country and has substantial interests in the region. The seven other Arctic states are Russia, Canada, Iceland, Denmark (by virtue of Greenland), Norway, Sweden, and Finland. The Arctic Research and Policy Act (ARPA) of 1984 (Title I of P.L. 98-373 of July 31, 1984) “provide[s] for a comprehensive national policy dealing with national research needs and objectives in the Arctic.” The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the lead federal agency for implementing Arctic research policy. The Arctic Council, created in 1996, is the leading international forum for addressing issues relating to the Arctic. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) sets forth a comprehensive regime of law and order in the world’s oceans, including the Arctic Ocean. The United States is not a party to UNCLOS.

Following the end of the Cold War, the Arctic states sought to maintain the Arctic as a region of cooperation, low tension, peaceful resolution of disputes, and respect for international law. Over the past 10 to 15 years, the emergence of great power competition between the United States, Russia, and China has introduced elements of competition and tension into the Arctic’s geopolitical environment. Russia’s war in Ukraine beginning on February 24, 2022, has further affected the region’s geopolitical environment by prompting the seven Arctic states other than Russia to suspend most forms of Arctic cooperation with Russia, by prompting Finland and Sweden to apply for NATO membership (they are now NATO members), and in other ways.

The Department of Defense (DOD) and the Coast Guard are devoting increased attention to the Arctic in their planning, budgeting, and operations. Whether DOD and the Coast Guard are taking sufficient actions for defending U.S. interests in the region is a topic of congressional oversight. The Coast Guard has two operational polar icebreakers and through FY2023 has received funding for procuring the first two of four or five planned new heavy polar icebreakers.

The diminishment of Arctic ice could lead in coming years to increased commercial shipping on two trans-Arctic sea routes—the Northern Sea Route close to Russia, and the Northwest Passage close to Alaska and through the Canadian archipelago—though the rate of increase in the use of these routes might not be as great as sometimes anticipated in press accounts. International guidelines for ships operating in Arctic waters have been updated.

Changes to the Arctic brought about by warming temperatures will likely allow more onshore and offshore exploration for oil, gas, and minerals. Warming that causes permafrost to melt could pose challenges to onshore exploration activities. Increased vessel traffic (e.g., oil and gas exploration, cruise ships, expanded fishing activities) in the Arctic increase the risk of pollution in Arctic waters. Cleaning up oil spills in ice-covered waters will be more difficult than in other areas, primarily because effective strategies for cleaning up oil spills in ice-covered waters have yet to be developed. Changes in the Arctic could result in migration of fish stocks to new waters, and could affect protected species. The United States is working with other countries regarding the management of Arctic fish stocks.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Definitions of the Arctic ............................................................................................................ 1

Arctic Circle Definition ...................................................................................................... 1 Definition in Arctic Research and Policy Act (ARPA) of 1984 .......................................... 2

Other Definitions ................................................................................................................ 2

Population of the Arctic ............................................................................................................ 5 Eight Arctic States, Including Seven NATO Members and Five Arctic Coastal States ............ 5 U.S. Identity as an Arctic Nation............................................................................................... 6 U.S. Arctic Research ................................................................................................................. 6

Arctic Research and Policy Act (ARPA) of 1984, As Amended ......................................... 6

FY2025 NSF Budget Request for Arctic Research ............................................................. 7

March 2024 Report on Federal Agency Funding for Arctic Research ................................ 7

Major U.S. Policy Documents Relating to the Arctic ............................................................... 7

January 2009 Arctic Policy Directive (NSPD 66/HSPD 25) .............................................. 7 May 2013 National Strategy for Arctic Region .................................................................. 9 January 2015 Executive Order on Enhancing Coordination of Arctic Efforts .................... 9

October 2022 National Security Strategy Document .......................................................... 9

October 2022 National Strategy for the Arctic Region ..................................................... 10

Ambassador at Large for Arctic Affairs .................................................................................. 12 Arctic Executive Steering Committee (AESC) ....................................................................... 13

Arctic Council ......................................................................................................................... 13 Arctic and U.N. Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) .................................................. 14 House and Senate Arctic Member Organizations .................................................................... 15

Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 16

Climate Change, with Biophysical and Economic Impacts .................................................... 16

Warming Temperatures and a More Intense Water Cycle ................................................. 17

Sea Ice Decline and Mobility ............................................................................................ 18

Land-Based Changes ........................................................................................................ 20

Geopolitical Environment ....................................................................................................... 21

Overview ........................................................................................................................... 21

Impact of Russia’s War in Ukraine ................................................................................... 22 October 2021 National Intelligence Estimate ................................................................... 29 Arctic Governance ............................................................................................................ 30 Relative Priority of Arctic in U.S. Policymaking .............................................................. 31

Russia in the Arctic ........................................................................................................... 32 NATO and European Union in the Arctic ......................................................................... 35 China in the Arctic ............................................................................................................ 36

U.S. and Allied Military Forces and Operations ..................................................................... 43

Overview ........................................................................................................................... 43

Russia’s Arctic Military Modernization ............................................................................ 44

U.S. and Allied Arctic Military Activities ......................................................................... 45

Some Specific Developments ........................................................................................... 48 Sufficiency of U.S. Arctic Military Activities ................................................................... 51

Selected FY2024 and FY2025 Legislative Provisions ..................................................... 52

Polar Icebreaking .................................................................................................................... 53 Search and Rescue (SAR) ....................................................................................................... 55

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service

Commercial Sea Transportation .............................................................................................. 57

Background ....................................................................................................................... 57

Destination Traffic, Not Trans-Arctic Traffic ................................................................... 58 Unpredictable Ice Conditions Hinder Trans-Arctic Shipping ........................................... 58

Basic Navigation Infrastructure Is Lacking ...................................................................... 59 Regulation of Arctic Shipping .......................................................................................... 60 Arctic Polar Code .............................................................................................................. 60

Oil, Gas, and Mineral Exploration .......................................................................................... 61

Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration .................................................................................... 61 Offshore Mineral Exploration ........................................................................................... 63

Extent of the Continental Margin ...................................................................................... 66

Onshore Energy and Mineral Development ...................................................................... 70

Oil Pollution and Pollution Response ..................................................................................... 72

Oil Pollution Implications of Arctic Change ..................................................................... 72

Response and Cleanup Challenges in the Arctic ............................................................... 74

Fisheries .................................................................................................................................. 77 Protected Species .................................................................................................................... 81

CRS Reports on Specific Arctic-Related Issues ............................................................................ 83

Figures

Figure 1. Arctic Area of Alaska as Defined by ARPA ..................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Entire Arctic Area as Defined by ARPA .......................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Arctic Research Funding by Agency, FY2022-FY2024................................................... 8 Figure 4. 2012 Record-Low Sea Ice Extent .................................................................................. 18 Figure 5. Estimated Historical, Observed, and Projected September Arctic Sea Ice Extent ......... 19 Figure 6. Arctic SAR Areas in Arctic SAR Agreement ................................................................. 56

Figure 7. Seven Regions of the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf ................................................ 67

Contacts

Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 84

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 1

Introduction

The diminishment of Arctic sea ice has led to increased human activities in the Arctic, and has heightened interest in, and concerns about, the region’s future. Issues such as geopolitical competition in the region between the United States, Russia, and the People’s Republic of China (PRC, or China); increased military operations in the region by Russia and other Arctic countries; growth in commercial shipping through the Arctic; and oil, gas, and mineral exploration in the Arctic could affect the region’s future.

The United States, by virtue of Alaska, is an Arctic country and has substantial political, economic, energy, environmental, and other interests in the region. Decisions that Congress makes on Arctic-related issues could significantly affect these interests.

This report provides an overview of Arctic-related issues for Congress, and refers readers to more in-depth CRS reports on specific Arctic-related issues. Congressional readers with questions about an issue discussed in this report should contact the author or authors of the section of the report discussing that issue. The authors are identified by footnote at the start of each section.

This report does not track legislation on specific Arctic-related issues. For tracking of legislative activity, see the CRS reports relating to specific Arctic-related issues that are listed at the end of this report.

Background¹

Definitions of the Arctic

There are multiple definitions of the Arctic that result in differing descriptions of the land and sea areas encompassed by the term. Policy discussions of the Arctic can employ varying definitions of the region, and readers should bear in mind that the definition used in one discussion may differ from that used in another. This CRS report does not rely on any one definition.

Arctic Circle Definition

The most common and basic definition of the Arctic defines the region as the land and sea area north of the Arctic Circle (a circle of latitude at about 66°34′ North).² For surface locations within this zone, the sun is generally above the horizon for 24 continuous hours at least once per year (at the summer solstice) and below the horizon for 24 continuous hours at least once per year (at the winter solstice). The land and sea area within the Arctic Circle is about 8.14 million square miles,³ which is about 4.1% (or between 1/24^th and 1/25^th) of the Earth’s surface, and more than twice the land area of the United States, which is about 3.5 million square miles.

1 This section was prepared by Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.

2 Sources differ on the precise latitude of the Arctic Circle. One source states “The position of the Arctic Circle is not fixed and currently runs 66°33′49.9″ north of the Equator. Its latitude depends on the Earth’s axial tilt, which fluctuates within a margin of more than 2° over a 41,000-year period, owing to tidal forces resulting from the orbit of the Moon. Consequently, the Arctic Circle is currently drifting northwards at a speed of about 14.5 m (48 ft) per year. (“Arctic Circle,” Wikipedia, updated January 21, 2024, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Circle.)

3 Source: Figure provided to CRS by Geography and Map Division of Library of Congress, May 12, 2020, in consultation with the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (continued...)

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 2

The Arctic Circle definition of the Arctic includes the northernmost third or so of Alaska, as well as the Chukchi Sea, which separates that part of Alaska from Russia, and U.S. territorial and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters north of Alaska. It does not include the lower two-thirds or so of Alaska or the Bering Sea, which separates that lower part of the state from Russia.

The Arctic Ocean, which is roughly at the center of the Arctic region, accounts for much of the region’s total area. By one calculation, the Arctic Ocean has an area of about 6.01 million square miles, which is about 4.3% of the Earth’s ocean area.⁴ This figure uses boundaries for the Arctic Ocean that include some waters south of the Arctic Circle.⁵ Other sources, using different boundaries for the Arctic Ocean, put the size of the Arctic Ocean at about 5.4 million square miles.⁶

Definition in Arctic Research and Policy Act (ARPA) of 1984

Section 112 of the Arctic Research and Policy Act (ARPA) of 1984 (Title I of P.L. 98-373 of July 31, 1984)⁷ defines the Arctic as follows:

As used in this title, the term “Arctic” means all United States and foreign territory north of the Arctic Circle and all United States territory north and west of the boundary formed by the Porcupine, Yukon, and Kuskokwim Rivers [in Alaska]; all contiguous seas, including the Arctic Ocean and the Beaufort, Bering, and Chukchi Seas; and the Aleutian chain.

This definition, which is codified at 15 U.S.C. 4111,⁸ includes certain parts of Alaska below the Arctic Circle, including the Aleutian Islands and portions of central and western mainland Alaska, such as the Seward Peninsula and the Yukon Delta.

The U.S. Coast Guard states that “The U.S. Arctic encompasses some 2,521 miles of shoreline, an international strait adjacent to the Russian Federation, and 647 miles of land border with Canada above the Arctic Circle. The U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the Arctic contains approximately 889,000 square miles of ocean.”⁹ Figure 1 shows the Arctic area of Alaska as defined by ARPA; Figure 2 shows the entire Arctic area as defined by ARPA.

Other Definitions

Other definitions of the Arctic are based on factors such as average temperature, the northern tree line,¹⁰ the extent of permafrost on land, the extent of sea ice on the ocean, or jurisdictional or

Other sources provide different figures for the land and sea area within the Arctic Circle, such as 7.7 million square miles. (See, for example, “Arctic Circle,” Wikipedia, updated February 13, 2023, accessed March 7, 2024.)

4 Source: NOAA, National Geophysical Data Center, “World Ocean Volumes,” accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/g/files/anmtlf171/files/2023-01/World%20Ocean%20Volumes.pdf. The table presented at that source states that the Arctic Ocean has an area of 15.558 million square kilometers, which converts to about 6.007 million square miles.

5 See the map posted at NOAA, National Geophysical Data Center, “World Ocean Volumes,” accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/g/files/anmtlf171/files/2023-01/World%20Ocean%20Volumes.pdf.

6 See, for example, “Arctic Ocean,” Britannica (Encyclopedia Britannica), accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.britannica.com/place/Arctic-Ocean; or “Arctic Ocean,” World Atlas, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.worldatlas.com/seas/arctic-ocean.html.

7 Title II of P.L. 98-373 is the National Critical Materials Act of 1984.

8 As codified, the definition reads, “As used in this chapter...”

9 Coast Guard, Arctic Strategic Outlook, April 2019, p. 11.

10 For a map of the Arctic tree line boundary, see “Arctic Tree Line Boundary,” Arctic Portal.org, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://arcticportal.org/maps/download/arctic-definitions/2424-arctic-tree-line-boundary.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 3

administrative boundaries. A definition based on a climate-related factor could circumscribe differing areas over time as a result of climate change.

Figure 1. Arctic Area of Alaska as Defined by ARPA

Source: U.S. Arctic Research Commission (https://www.arctic.gov/uploads/assets/ ARPA_Alaska_only_150dpi.jpg, accessed March 7, 2024).

For example, the 10°C isotherm definition of the Arctic—a definition sometimes used in scientific and environmental discussions of the Arctic¹¹—defines the region as the land and sea area in the northern hemisphere where the average temperature for the warmest month (July) is below 10°C, or 50°F. This definition results in an irregularly shaped Arctic region that excludes some land and sea areas north of the Arctic Circle but includes some land and sea areas south of the Arctic Circle. This definition currently excludes all of Finland and Sweden, as well as some of

11 See, for example, “Boundaries of the Arctic,” Climate Policy Watcher, January 7, 2022, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/atmospheric-circulation/boundaries-of-the-arctic.html; “What is the Arctic?” National Snow & Ice Data Center, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://nsidc.org/learn/parts-cryosphere/arctic-weather- and-climate; Hobart M. King, “Where is the Arctic? What is its Boundary?” Geology.com, undated, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://geology.com/maps/where-is-the-arctic/; Fabian Baur and Bruno Kothe, “Climate and Climate Change in the Arctic,” European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT), April 28, 2020, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.eumetsat.int/science-blog/climate-and-climate-change-arctic; “The Arctic, as Defined by Summer Temperature,” GRID-Arendal, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.grida.no/resources/7743; Arctic Pollution Issues: A State of the Arctic Environment Report, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo, 1997, p. 6, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.amap.no/documents/download/79/inline (cover page and front section) and https://www.amap.no/documents/download/68/inline (section that includes page 6).

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 4

Alaska above the Arctic Circle, while including virtually all of the Bering Sea and Alaska’s Aleutian Islands.

Figure 2. Entire Arctic Area as Defined by ARPA

Source: U.S. Arctic Research Commission (https://www.arctic.gov/uploads/assets/ARPA_Polar_150dpi.jpg, accessed March 7, 2024).

As another example, the definition of the Arctic adopted by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP)—a working group of the Arctic Council—“essentially includes the terrestrial and marine areas north of the Arctic Circle (66°32’ N),^[¹²^] and north of 62° N in Asia and 60° N in North America, modified to include the marine areas north of the Aleutian chain, Hudson Bay, and parts of the North Atlantic, including the Labrador Sea.”¹³

12 Regarding the precise latitude of the Arctic Circle, see footnote 2.

13 For examples of maps of the Arctic reflecting various definitions of the Arctic, see

• the map of the geographic areas described in Annex 1 of the May 2017 Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation, accessed March 7, 2024, at both “Arctic Region,” U.S. Department of State, https://www.state.gov/key-topics-office-of-ocean-and-polar-affairs/arctic/, and “Maps,” U.S. Arctic Research Commission, https://www.arctic.gov/uploads/assets/arctic-sci-agree-150dpi-color.jpg.

• “Definitions of the Arctic,” UN Environment Programme, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.grida.no/ resources/7010;

• the collection of maps posted at “Arctic Definitions,” Arctic Portal, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://arcticportal.org/maps/download/arctic-definitions;

(continued...)

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 5

Some observers use the term “high north” as a way of referring to the Arctic, or make a distinction between the “high Arctic”—meaning, in general, the colder portions of the Arctic that are closer to the North Pole—and other areas of the Arctic that are generally less cold and farther away from the North Pole, which are sometimes described as the low Arctic or the subarctic.

Population of the Arctic

According to one estimate, about 4 million people, or about 0.05% of the world’s population, live in the Arctic, of which roughly half (roughly 2 million) live in Russia’s part of the Arctic,¹⁴ and roughly 500,000 belong to Indigenous peoples.¹⁵ Another source states “Approximately two and a half million of Russia’s inhabitants live in Arctic territory, accounting for nearly half of the population living in the Arctic worldwide.”¹⁶ Another source, using a broader definition of the Arctic, concluded that just over 10 million people live in the Arctic, including 7 million in Russia’s Arctic.¹⁷

Eight Arctic States, Including Seven NATO Members and Five Arctic Coastal States

Eight countries have territory north of the Arctic Circle: the United States (Alaska), Russia, Canada, Iceland,¹⁸ Denmark (by virtue of Greenland, a self-governing part of the Kingdom of Denmark), Norway, Sweden, and Finland. These eight countries are often referred to as the Arctic countries or Arctic States, and they are the member states of the Arctic Council, which is discussed further below.

• “Arctic Definition Map,” Arctic Portal Library, accessed March 7, 2024, at http://library.arcticportal.org/ 1492/;

• the maps posted by the Arctic Centre of the University of Lapland, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.arcticcentre.org/EN/arcticregion/Maps/definitions and https://www.arcticcentre.org/EN/ arcticregion/Maps/permafrost;

• Michael Paul and Göran Swistek, Russia in the Arctic: Development Plans, Military Potential, and Conflict Prevention, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP) (German Institute for International and Security Affairs), SWP Research Paper 3, February 2022, p. 10 (Map 1).

14 Sources: “Arctic Peoples,” Arctic Council, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://arctic-council.org/en/explore/topics/ arctic-peoples/; National Snow & Ice Data Center, “Arctic People,” accessed March 7, 2024, at https://web.archive.org/ web/20220702084552/https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/arctic-people.html; United Kingdom, House of Commons, Defence Committee, On Thin Ice: UK Defence in the Arctic, Twelfth Report of Session 2017–19, August 15, 2018 (Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 19 July 2018), p. 6; “Arctic Indigenous Peoples,” Arctic Centre, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.arcticcentre.org/EN/arcticregion/Arctic-Indigenous-Peoples.

15 Source: “Permanent Participants,” Arctic Council, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://arctic-council.org/en/about/ permanent-participants/.

16 “The Russian Federation,” Arctic Council, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://arctic-council.org/en/about/states/ russian-federation/.

17 Timothy Heleniak, “The Future of Arctic Populations,” Polar Geography, January 3, 2020. Another source states that “using more broad definition, according to the University of the Arctic Atlas, there are approximately 13.1 million people living in the area of the circumpolar North” (“Arctic Indigenous Peoples,” Arctic Centre, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.arcticcentre.org/EN/arcticregion/Arctic-Indigenous-Peoples).

18 The northern coast of mainland Iceland is just south of the Arctic Circle, but the Arctic Circle passes through Grimsey Island, a small offshore island of Iceland that is about 25 miles north of the northern coast of mainland Iceland. The northern part of Grimsey Island is Iceland’s territory north of the Arctic Circle. See, for example, “Grímsey,” Wikipedia, updated October 11, 2022, accessed March 7, 2024; “Is Iceland in the Arctic Circle?” Iceland Unlimited, January 2017, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://icelandunlimited.is/blog/is-iceland-in-the-arctic-circle/.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 6

The seven Arctic countries other than Russia are all members of NATO, and are sometimes referred to as the Arctic 7 or A7 states. Five of the eight Arctic countries—the United States, Canada, Denmark (by virtue of Greenland), Norway, and Russia—are considered Arctic coastal states because they have mainland coasts that front onto waters north of the Arctic Circle.

U.S. Identity as an Arctic Nation

As mentioned earlier, the United States, by virtue of Alaska, is an Arctic country and has substantial political, economic, energy, environmental, and other interests in the region. Even so, Alaska is geographically separated and somewhat distant from the other 49 states, and relatively few Americans—fewer than 68,000 as of 2023—live in the Arctic part of Alaska as shown in Figure 1.¹⁹ A March 6, 2020, research paper on the Arctic in U.S. national identity, based on data collected in online surveys conducted in October-December 2019, stated: “We found that Americans continue to mildly disagree with the assertion that the United States is an Arctic nation with broad and fundamental interests in the region.”²⁰

U.S. Arctic Research

Arctic Research and Policy Act (ARPA) of 1984, As Amended

The Arctic Research and Policy Act (ARPA) of 1984 (Title I of P.L. 98-373 of July 31, 1984)²¹ “provide[s] for a comprehensive national policy dealing with national research needs and objectives in the Arctic.”²² The act, among other things

• made a series of findings concerning the importance of the Arctic and Arctic research;

• established the U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC) to promote Arctic research and recommend Arctic research policy;²³

• designated the National Science Foundation (NSF) as the lead federal agency for implementing Arctic research policy;

• established the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) to develop a national Arctic research policy and a five-year plan to implement that

19 Source for figure of fewer than 68,000: CRS analysis of data presented at Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, “Alaska Population Estimates,” updated July 17, 2024, accessed July 25, 2024, at https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/data-pages/alaska-population-estimates. Figures presented there for Alaska’s 2023 population estimates by borough, census area, and economic region show that of Alaska’s estimated population of 736,812 as of 2023, fewer than 68,000 were in areas wholly or partially north of the boundary of the Arctic area of Alaska that is shown in Figure 1.

20 Zachary D. Hamilla, The Arctic in U.S. National Identity (2019), Arctic Studio, March 6, 2020, p. 1. See also Rodger Baker, “Remapping the American Arctic,” Stratfor, July 28, 2020.

21 Title II of P.L. 98-373 is the National Critical Materials Act of 1984.

22 These words are taken from the official title of P.L. 98-373. (Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 is the short title of Title I of P.L. 98-373.) The remainder of P.L. 98-373’s official title relates to Title II of the act, the short title of which is the National Critical Materials Act of 1984.

23 USARC publishes a biennial report to the White House and Congress outlining goals and objectives for Arctic research; the 2023-2024 edition is United States Arctic Research Commission, Report on the Goals and Objectives for Arctic Research 2023-2024 for the US Arctic Research Program Plan, January 2023, accessed March 7, 2024, https://www.arctic.gov/goals-and-objectives/.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 7

policy, and designated the NSF representative on the IARPC as its chairperson;²⁴ and

• defined the term “Arctic” for purposes of the act.

The Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 was amended by P.L. 101-609 of November 16, 1990.

FY2025 NSF Budget Request for Arctic Research

NSF, which is the lead federal agency for implementing Arctic research policy, carries out Arctic and Antarctic research activities through its Office of Polar Programs (OPP). NSF states that “OPP is the primary U.S. supporter of fundamental research in the polar regions. In the Arctic, NSF helps coordinate research planning as directed by the Arctic Research Policy Act of 1984, and the NSF Director chairs the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) created for this purpose.”²⁵ NSF requested $588.83 million for OPP for FY2025, which is about 9.3% more than the enacted figure of $538.62 million for FY2023.²⁶

March 2024 Report on Federal Agency Funding for Arctic Research

A March 2024 report from the National Science and Technology Council—the FY2025 edition of a congressionally mandated annual report—presents a compilation of budgetary information reported by federal agencies and departments engaged in Arctic research. The report states

The federal government spent over $550 million on Arctic research in fiscal year (FY) 2023…. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of Defense (DoD)—agencies with the three largest Arctic budgets—account for over 80% of the FY 2023 total. Based on agency summaries, NSF invests primarily in basic research, DoD invests primarily in applied research, and NASA invests primarily in research infrastructure.²⁷

Figure 3 presents the report’s summary table of Arctic research funding by agency.

Major U.S. Policy Documents Relating to the Arctic

The executive branch has issued a number of policy documents concerning the Arctic, including those mentioned below.

January 2009 Arctic Policy Directive (NSPD 66/HSPD 25)

On January 12, 2009 (i.e., eight days before its final day in office), the George W. Bush Administration released a presidential directive establishing a new U.S. policy for the Arctic region. The directive, dated January 9, 2009, was issued as National Security Presidential

24 The IARPC currently includes more than a dozen federal agencies, departments, and offices. Additional information on the IARPC is available at https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/arctic/iarpc/start.jsp.

25 National Science Foundation, FY 2025 Budget Request to Congress, March 11, 2024, p. OPP-1 (PDF page 327 of 566).

26 National Science Foundation, FY 2025 Budget Request to Congress, March 11, 2024, p. OPP-1 (PDF page 327 of 566). The document does not divide the total requested amount for OPP for FY2025 into subtotals for the Arctic and Antarctic.

27 Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee of the National Science and Technology Council, Arctic Research Crosscut Budget Report FY 2022-2024, March 2024, p. 4. The reported is mandated by Section 5912 of the FY2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (H.R. 7776/P.L. 117-263 of December 23, 2022).

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 8

Directive 66/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 25 (NSPD 66/HSPD 25).²⁸ The directive was the result of an interagency review, and it superseded for the Arctic (but not the Antarctic) a 1994 presidential directive on Arctic and Antarctic policy. The directive, among other things

• states that the United States is an Arctic nation, with varied and compelling interests in the region;

• sets forth a six-element overall U.S. policy for the region;

• describes U.S. national security and homeland security interests in the Arctic; and

• discusses a number of issues as they relate to the Arctic, including international governance; the extended continental shelf and boundary issues; promotion of international scientific cooperation; maritime transportation; economic issues, including energy; and environmental protection and conservation of natural resources.

Figure 3. Arctic Research Funding by Agency, FY2022-FY2024

Table from March 2024 Arctic Research Crosscut Budget Report for FY2022-FY2024

Source: ¹ Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee of the National Science and Technology Council, Arctic Research Crosscut Budget Report FY 2022-2024, March 2024, p. 4.

28 The text of NSPD 66/HSPD 25 is posted at the Homeland Security Digital Library at https://www.hsdl.org/? abstract&did=750476.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 9

May 2013 National Strategy for Arctic Region

On May 10, 2013, the Obama Administration released a document entitled National Strategy for the Arctic Region.²⁹ The document appears to supplement rather than supersede the January 2009 Arctic policy directive (NSPD 66/HSPD 25) discussed above.³⁰ The document states that the strategy is built on three lines of effort:

• advancing U.S. security interests,

• pursuing responsible Arctic region stewardship, and

• strengthening international cooperation.

Actions taken under the strategy, the document states, will be informed by four guiding principles:

• safeguarding peace and stability,

• making decisions using the best available information,

• pursuing innovative arrangements, and

• consulting and coordinating with Alaska natives.

On January 30, 2014, the Obama Administration released an implementation plan for the May 2013 national strategy for the Arctic region.³¹ The implementation plan outlines about 36 specific initiatives.

January 2015 Executive Order on Enhancing Coordination of Arctic Efforts

On January 21, 2015, then-President Obama issued Executive Order 13689, entitled “Enhancing Coordination of National Efforts in the Arctic.” The order established an Arctic Executive Steering Committee is to “provide guidance to executive departments and agencies and enhance coordination of Federal Arctic policies across agencies and offices, and, where applicable, with State, local, and Alaska Native tribal governments and similar Alaska Native organizations, academic and research institutions, and the private and nonprofit sectors.”

October 2022 National Security Strategy Document

A national security strategy document released by the Biden Administration in October 2022 includes a section on the Arctic, entitled “Maintain a Peaceful Arctic,” which states

The United States seeks an Arctic region that is peaceful, stable, prosperous, and cooperative. Climate change is making the Arctic more accessible than ever, threatening Arctic communities and vital ecosystems, creating new potential economic opportunities. and intensifying competition to shape the region’s future. Russia has invested significantly in its presence in the Arctic over the last decade, modernizing its military infrastructure and increasing the pace of exercises and training operations. Its aggressive behavior has

29 National Strategy for the Arctic Region, May 2013, 11 pp.

30 National Strategy for the Arctic Region states on page 6 that the “lines of effort” it describes are to be undertaken “[t]o meet the challenges and opportunities in the Arctic region, and in furtherance of established Arctic Region Policy,” at which point there is a footnote referencing the January 2009 Arctic policy directive.

31 Implementation Plan for The National Strategy for the Arctic Region, January 2014, 32 pp. The news release announcing the implementation plan is posted at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/01/30/white-house- releases-implementation-plan-national-strategy-arctic-region. The document itself is posted at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/implementation_plan_for_the_national_strategy_for_the_ arctic_region_-_fi....pdf.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 10

raised geopolitical tensions in the Arctic, creating new risks of unintended conflict and hindering cooperation. The PRC has also sought to increase its influence in the Arctic by rapidly increased its Arctic investments, pursuing new scientific activities, and using these scientific engagements to conduct dual-use research with intelligence or military applications.

We will uphold U.S. security in the region by improving our maritime domain awareness, communications, disaster response capabilities, and icebreaking capacity to prepare for increased international activity in the region. We will exercise U.S. Government presence in the region as required, while reducing risk and preventing unnecessary escalation. Arctic nations have the primary responsibility for addressing regional challenges, and we will deepen our cooperation with our Arctic allies and partners and work with them to sustain the Arctic Council and other Arctic institutions despite the challenges to Arctic cooperation posed by Russia’s war in Ukraine. We will continue to protect freedom of navigation and determine the U.S. extended continental shelf in accordance with international rules. We must build resilience to and mitigate climate change in the region, including through agreements to reduce emissions and more cross-Arctic research collaboration. As economic activity in the Arctic increases, we will invest in infrastructure, improve livelihoods, and encourage responsible private sector investment by the United States, our allies, and our partners, including in critical minerals, and improve investment screening for national security purposes. Across these efforts, we will uphold our commitment to honor Tribal sovereignty and self-governance through regular, meaningful, and robust consultation and collaboration with Alaska Native communities.³²

October 2022 National Strategy for the Arctic Region

A national strategy for the Arctic region that was also released by the Biden Administration in October 2022, and which states that it is an update of the above-noted May 2013 national strategy for the Arctic region, states the following in its executive summary:

The United States seeks an Arctic region that is peaceful, stable, prosperous, and cooperative. The National Strategy for the Arctic Region articulates an affirmative U.S. agenda over the next ten years, from 2022 to 2032, to realize this vision. This strategy, an update of its 2013 predecessor, addresses the climate crisis with greater urgency and directs new investments in sustainable development to improve livelihoods for Arctic residents, while conserving the environment. It also acknowledges increasing strategic competition in the Arctic since 2013, exacerbated by Russia’s unprovoked war in Ukraine, and seeks to position the United States to both effectively compete and manage tensions.

Realizing our vision during this dynamic and challenging period will require U.S. leadership at home and abroad. We will advance U.S. interests across four mutually reinforcing pillars spanning both domestic and international issues.

• Pillar 1—Security: We will deter threats to the U.S. homeland and our allies by enhancing the capabilities required to defend our interests in the Arctic, while coordinating shared approaches with allies and partners and mitigating risks of unintended escalation. We will exercise U.S. government presence in the Arctic region as required to protect the American people and defend our sovereign territory.

• Pillar 2—Climate Change and Environmental Protection: The U.S. government will partner with Alaskan communities and the State of Alaska to build resilience to the impacts of climate change, while working to reduce emissions from the Arctic as part of broader global mitigation efforts, to improve scientific understanding, and to conserve Arctic ecosystems.

32 White House, National Security Strategy, October 2022, pp. 44-45.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 11

• Pillar 3—Sustainable Economic Development: We will pursue sustainable development and improve livelihoods in Alaska, including for Alaska Native communities, by investing in infrastructure, improving access to services, and supporting growing economic sectors. We will also work with allies and partners to expand high-standard investment and sustainable development across the Arctic region.

• Pillar 4—International Cooperation and Governance: Despite the challenges to Arctic cooperation resulting from Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, the United States will work to sustain institutions for Arctic cooperation, including the Arctic Council, and position these institutions to manage the impacts of increasing activity in the region. We also seek to uphold international law, rules, norms, and standards in the Arctic.

This strategy is intended to serve as a framework to guide the U.S. government’s approach to tackling emerging challenges and opportunities in the Arctic. Our work will be guided by five principles that will be applied across all four pillars.

• Consult, Coordinate, and Co-Manage with Alaska Native Tribes and Communities: The United States is committed to regular, meaningful, and robust consultation, coordination, and co-management with Alaska Native Tribes, communities, corporations, and other organizations and to ensuring equitable inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and their knowledge.

• Deepen Relationships with Allies and Partners: We will deepen our cooperation with Arctic Allies and partners: Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark (including Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. We will also expand Arctic cooperation with other countries that uphold international law, rules, norms, and standards in the region.

• Plan for Long-Lead Time Investments: Many of the investments prioritized in this strategy will require long lead times. We will be proactive, anticipating changes coming to the Arctic over the next several decades and making new investments now to be prepared.

• Cultivate Cross-Sectoral Coalitions and Innovative Ideas: The challenges and opportunities in the Arctic cannot be solved by national governments alone. The United States will strengthen and build on coalitions of private sector; academia; civil society; and state, local, and Tribal actors to encourage and harness innovative ideas to tackle these challenges.

• Commit to a Whole of Government, Evidence-Based Approach: The Arctic extends beyond the responsibility of any single region or government agency. U.S. Federal departments and agencies will work together to implement this strategy. We will deploy evidence-based decision-making and carry out our work in close partnership with the State of Alaska; Alaska Native Tribes, communities, corporations, and other organizations; and local communities, as well as with the U.S. Congress.³³

In October 2023, the Biden Administration released an implementation plan for its October 2022 national strategy for the Arctic region.³⁴ The implementation plan includes 13 strategic objectives in support of the October 2022 document’s four pillars.³⁵

33 White House, National Strategy for the Arctic Region, October 2022, pp. 3-4.

34 White House, Implementation Plan for the 2022 National Strategy for the Arctic Region, October 18, 2023, 58 pp.

35 The 13 strategic objectives are improve our understanding of the Arctic operating environment; exercise presence to support priority goals; maximize unity of effort with allies and partners; advance community adaptation and climate resilience; pursue international initiatives to mitigate emissions in the Arctic; expand research to better understand (continued...)

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 12

Ambassador at Large for Arctic Affairs

On July 16, 2014, then-Secretary of State John Kerry announced the appointment of retired Coast Guard Admiral Robert J. Papp Jr., who served as Commandant of the Coast Guard from May 2010 to May 2014, as the first U.S. Special Representative for the Arctic.³⁶ Papp served as the U.S. Special Representative until January 20, 2017, the final day of the Obama Administration and the first day of the Trump Administration.

The position of U.S. Special Representative for the Arctic remained unfilled from January 20, 2017, through July 29, 2020, when it was effectively replaced by the newly created position of the U.S. coordinator for the Arctic region. On July 29, 2020, the Trump Administration announced that career diplomat James (Jim) DeHart would be the first U.S. coordinator for the Arctic region; DeHart began his work in the position that day.³⁷

In the 117^th Congress, H.R. 3361, the United States Ambassador at Large for Arctic Affairs Act of 2021, H.R. 3433, the Arctic Diplomacy Act of 2021, and H.R. 9112, the United States Ambassador at Large for Arctic Affairs Act of 2022, each would have established a position of United States Ambassador at Large for Arctic Affairs,³⁸ while S. 2967, the Arctic Diplomacy Act of 2021, would have established the position of Assistant Secretary of State for Arctic Affairs.³⁹ In the 118^th Congress, S. 821 would establish an Ambassador-at-Large for the Arctic Region.

On August 26, 2022, the Biden Administration announced that it was planning to appoint an Ambassador-at-Large for the Arctic Region.⁴⁰ On February 13, 2023, the Biden Administration announced that it was nominating Mike Sfraga, chair of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC), for the position of Ambassador at Large for Arctic Affairs.⁴¹ The nomination was received in the Senate on February 16, 2023. On January 3, 2024, the nomination was returned to the President under the provisions of Senate Rule XXXI, paragraph 6 of the Standing Rules of the

climate change and inform policy decisions; conserve and protect Arctic ecosystems, including through indigenous co- production and co-management; invest in infrastructure; improve access to services and protect subsistence lifestyles and cultural traditions; develop emerging economic sectors in Alaska; work with allies and partners to increase responsible Arctic investment, including in critical minerals; sustain the Arctic Council and other arctic institutions and agreements; and protect freedom of navigation and continental shelf limits.

36 See “Retired Admiral Robert Papp to Serve as U.S. Special Representative for the Arctic,” Press Statement, John Kerry, Secretary of State, Washington, DC, July 16, 2014.

37 See Department of State, “Appointment of U.S. Coordinator for the Arctic Region,” Media Note, Office of the Spokesperson, July 29, 2020. See also Matthew Lee, “US Names New Arctic Envoy in Push to Expand Reach in Region,” Associated Press, July 29, 2020; Timothy Gardner, “U.S. Appoints Coordinator for Arctic Policy As Mineral Race Heats Up,” Reuters, July 29, 2020; Courtney McBride, “New Cold War: U.S. Names Arctic Policy Czar to Keep Tabs on China, Russia,” Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2020; Melody Schreiber, “The Trump Administration Appoints a New State Department Arctic Coordinator,” ArcticToday, July 29, 2020; Levon Sevunts (Radio Canada International), “Appointment of U.S. Arctic Co-ordinator May Signal More Muscular American Policy,” CBC, July 31, 2020.

38 For a press report discussing legislative proposals for establishing a U.S. Ambassador at Large for Arctic Affairs, see Hilde-Gunn Bye, “Top Lawmakers Want to Establish a US Ambassador-at-Large for Arctic Affairs,” High North News, May 28, 2021.

39 For a press report discussing S. 2967, see Melody Schreiber, “A New Bill Aims to Create the US’s First High-Level Arctic Diplomatic Office,” ArcticToday, October 8, 2021.

40 Department of State, “Establishing an Ambassador-at-Large for the Arctic Region,” press statement, August 26, 2022. See also Melody Schreiber, “US to Create New Arctic Ambassador Position,” ArcticToday, August 26, 2022.

41 White House, “President Biden Announces Key Nominees,” February 13, 2023. See also https://www.congress.gov/ nomination/118th-congress/358; Melody Schreiber, “Sfraga Named New Arctic Ambassador,” ArcticToday, February 13, 2023; Riley Rogerson, “Biden Nominates Alaskan as 1^st Arctic Ambassador,” Anchorage Daily News, February 14, 2023.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 13

Senate.⁴² The Biden Administration subsequently renominated Sfraga for the position; the nomination was received in the Senate on January 11, 2024.⁴³

Arctic Executive Steering Committee (AESC)

On September 24, 2021, the Biden Administration announced that it was “[r]eactivating the Arctic Executive Steering Committee (AESC), a mechanism to advance U.S. Arctic interests and coordinate Federal actions in the Arctic. The AESC will also facilitate the implementation of the Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area, including by standing up the Northern Bering Sea Task Force and Tribal Advisory Council. These structures reinforce collaborative partnerships— particularly with Alaska Native communities—and harness science and Indigenous Knowledge to inform management and policy.” The Administration also announced that it was hiring Ambassador David Balton as AESC Executive Director and Raychelle Aluaq Daniel as AESC Deputy Director.⁴⁴ The AESC was initially established by the above-mentioned January 2015 Executive Order 13689 on enhancing coordination of Arctic efforts.⁴⁵

Arctic Council

The Arctic Council, created in 1996, is the leading international forum for addressing issues relating to the Arctic. Its founding document is the Ottawa Declaration of September 19, 1996, a joint declaration (not a treaty) signed by representatives of the eight Arctic states. The State Department describes the council as “the preeminent intergovernmental forum for addressing issues related to the Arctic Region. …The Arctic Council is not a treaty-based international organization but rather an international forum that operates on the basis of consensus, echoing the peaceful and cooperative nature of the Arctic Region.”⁴⁶

The Arctic Council’s membership consists of the eight Arctic states. All decisions of the Arctic Council and its subsidiary bodies are by consensus of the eight Arctic states. In addition to the eight member states, six organizations representing Arctic indigenous peoples have status as Permanent Participants. Thirteen non-Arctic states, 13 intergovernmental and interparliamentary

42 See the Congress.gov entry for the nomination at https://www.congress.gov/nomination/118th-congress/358. Senate Rule XXXI, paragraph 6 of the Standing Rules of the Senate states

Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President; and if the Senate shall adjourn or take a recess for more than thirty days, all nominations pending and not finally acted upon at the time of taking such adjournment or recess shall be returned by the Secretary to the President, and shall not again be considered unless they shall again be made to the Senate by the President. (“Rules of the Senate,” accessed March 7, 2024 at https://www.rules.senate.gov/rules-of-the- senate.)

43 See “PN1342—Michael Sfraga—Department of State” at https://www.congress.gov/nomination/118th- congress/1342.

44 White House, “Biden-⁠Harris Administration Brings Arctic Policy to the Forefront with Reactivated Steering Committee & New Slate of Research Commissioners,” press release, September 24, 2021.

45 A September 24, 2021, press report stated: “The steering committee had been moribund for the past four years, not meeting at a high level, said David Balton, appointed to direct it. He said ‘it will step up and do more in the Arctic.’ The revamped committee will try to figure out what ‘needs to be done to get a better handle on addressing the changes in the Arctic,’ Balton said.” (Seth Borenstein, “White House Steps Up Work on What to Do About Thawing Arctic,” Associated Press, September 24, 2021. See also Melody Schreiber, “Biden Appoints New U.S. Arctic Research, Leadership Officials in Science-Based approach,” ArcticToday, September 24, 2021.)

46 “Arctic Region,” U.S. Department of State, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.state.gov/key-topics-office-of- ocean-and-polar-affairs/arctic/.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 14

organizations, and 12 nongovernmental organizations have been approved as observers, making for a total of 38 observer states and organizations.⁴⁷

The council has a two-year chairmanship that rotates among the eight member states. The United States held the chairmanship from April 24, 2015, to May 11, 2017, and is scheduled to next hold it in 2031-2033. On May 11, 2023, the chairmanship was transferred from Russia to Norway.

Thematic areas of work addressed by the council include environment and climate, biodiversity, oceans, Arctic peoples, and agreements on Arctic scientific cooperation, cooperation on marine oil pollution preparedness and response in the Arctic, and cooperation on aeronautical and maritime search and rescue (SAR) in the Arctic. The Ottawa Declaration states explicitly that “The Arctic Council should not deal with matters related to military security.”

The eight Arctic states have signed three legally binding agreements negotiated under the auspices of the Arctic Council: a May 2011 agreement on cooperation on aeronautical and maritime SAR in the Arctic, a May 2013 agreement on cooperation on marine oil pollution preparedness and response in the Arctic, and a May 2017 agreement on enhancing international Arctic scientific cooperation.⁴⁸

Arctic and U.N. Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) “lays down a comprehensive regime of law and order in the world’s oceans and seas[,] establishing rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources.”⁴⁹ UNCLOS was adopted in 1982, and modified in 1994 by an agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the treaty, which relates to the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof that are beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. UNCLOS entered into force in November 1994. As of July 23, 2024, 170 parties (169 states and the European Union) were party to the treaty.⁵⁰

The United States is not a party to UNCLOS.⁵¹ The 1982 treaty and the 1994 agreement were transmitted to the Senate on October 6, 1994, during the 103^rd Congress, becoming Treaty Document 103-39. The full Senate to date has not voted on the question of whether to give its advice and consent to ratification of Treaty Document 103-39. Some Members of Congress, citing the Arctic, have introduced resolutions in favor of the United States becoming a party to

47 For list of the 38 observers and when they were approved for observer status, see “Who We Are” in Arctic Council, “Arctic Council,” accessed March 7, 2024, at https://arctic-council.org/en/. For a discussion of the non-Arctic observer states, see Evan T. Bloom, “The Rising Importance of Non-Arctic States in the Arctic,” Wilson Quarterly, Winter 2022.

48 For brief summaries of these three agreements and links to the texts of these agreements, see “Arctic Region,” U.S. Department of State, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.state.gov/key-topics-office-of-ocean-and-polar-affairs/ arctic/. For additional information on the Arctic Council’s organization and operations, see the Arctic Council’s website at https://arctic-council.org/.

49 United Nations, “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, Overview and full text,” updated July 13, 2022, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/ convention_overview_convention.htm.

50 Chronological lists of ratifications of, accessions and successions to the Convention and the related Agreements as of July 23, 2-24, accessed July 29, 2024, at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/ chronological_lists_of_ratifications.htm. The list shows that most recent state to become a party to the treaty is San Marino, which became a party on July 19, 2024.

51 The United States is not a signatory to the treaty. On July 29, 1994, the United States became a signatory to the 1994 agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the treaty. The United States has not ratified either the treaty or the 1994 agreement.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 15

UNCLOS.⁵² Although the United States is not a party to UNCLOS, the United States accepts and acts in accordance with the non-seabed mining provisions of the treaty, such as those relating to navigation and overflight, which the United States views as reflecting customary international law of the sea.⁵³

Part VI of UNCLOS (consisting of Articles 76 through 85), which covers the continental shelf, and Annex II to the treaty, which established a Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, are particularly pertinent to the Arctic, because Article 77 states that “The coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources,” and that these natural resources include, among other things, “mineral and other nonliving resources of the seabed and subsoil,” including oil and gas deposits.⁵⁴

Article 76 states that “the coastal State shall establish the outer edge of the continental margin wherever the margin extends beyond 200 nautical miles,” and that “Information on the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles ... shall be submitted by the coastal State to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf set up under Annex II.... The Commission shall make recommendations to coastal States on matters related to the establishment of the outer limits of their continental shelf. The limits of the shelf established by a coastal State on the basis of these recommendations shall be final and binding.”

House and Senate Arctic Member Organizations

In the House, a Congressional Arctic Working Group is co-chaired by Representative Mary Sattler Peltola and Representative Rick Larsen. The group has been listed as a Congressional Member Organization (CMO) since the 114^th Congress (2015-2017).⁵⁵

In the Senate, Senator Lisa Murkowski and Senator Angus King announced on March 4 and 5, 2015, the formation of a Senate Arctic Caucus.⁵⁶

52 In the 118th Cong., see, for example, S.Res. 466, a resolution calling upon the United States Senate to give its advice and consent to the ratification of UNCLOS, which was introduced in the Senate on November 15, 2023. For a press report about S.Res. 466, see Yereth Rosen, “Alaska’s Sen. Murkowski and Colleagues Make Another Attempt to Win Ratification of Oceans Treaty,” Alaska Beacon, November 17, 2023. For additional discussion of the question of whether the United States should become a party to UNCLOS, including arguments both for and against, see CRS Report R42784, U.S.-China Strategic Competition in South and East China Seas: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.

53 In a March 10, 1983, statement on U.S. oceans policy, President Reagan stated that “the United States is prepared to accept and act in accordance with the [treaty’s] balance of interests relating to traditional uses of the oceans—such as navigation and overflight. In this respect, the United States will recognize the rights of other states in the waters off their coasts, as reflected in the Convention, so long as the rights and freedoms of the United States and others under international law are recognized by such coastal states.” (Statement on United States Oceans Policy, March 10, 1983, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/statement-united-states-oceans-policy, and https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/143224.pdf.)

54 Other parts of UNCLOS relevant to the Arctic include those relating to navigation and high-seas freedoms, fisheries, and exclusive economic zones.

55 Committee on House Administration, “Congressional Member And Staff Organizations,” Congressional Member Organizations (CMOs) for 107^th through 118^th Congresses, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://cha.house.gov/ congressional-member-and-staff-organizations. In the 116^th Cong., the group was listed as the Arctic Working Group Caucus; in the 117^th Cong., it was listed as the Arctic Working Group.

56 Press release from the office of Sen. Angus King, “King, Murkowski Announce U.S. Senate Arctic Caucus,” March 4, 2015, accessed March 7, 2024, at http://www.king.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/king-murkowski-announce- us-senate-arctic-caucus. See also press release from the office of Sen. Lisa Murkowski, “Senators Murkowski, King Announce U.S. Senate Arctic Caucus,” March 5, 2015, accessed March 7, 2024, at http://www.murkowski.senate.gov/ (continued...)

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 16

Issues for Congress

Climate Change, with Biophysical and Economic Impacts⁵⁷

An array of climate changes in the Arctic is now documented by observing systems, with more expected with future greenhouse gas-driven climate change. Observed physical changes in the Arctic include warming ocean, soil, and air temperatures; melting permafrost; shifting vegetation and animal abundances; and altered characteristics of Arctic cyclones. These changes continue to affect traditional livelihoods and cultures in the region, infrastructure, and the economy, as well as the distribution and health of animal populations and vegetation. The changes raise risks of pollution, food supply, safety, cultural losses, and national security. The state government of Alaska concluded that observed climate changes “have resulted in a reduction of subsistence harvests, an increase in flooding and erosion, concerns about water and food safety and major impacts to infrastructure: including damage to buildings, roads and airports.”⁵⁸

A monitoring report of the Arctic Council concluded in 2019 that

the Arctic biophysical system is now clearly trending away from its previous state [in the 20^th century] and into a period of unprecedented change, with implications not only within but also beyond the Arctic.⁵⁹

A few broad points raise particular concerns about changes in the Arctic:

• Long lag times between cause and full effects: Changes once set in motion prompt further and often slow effects in different components of the Arctic system, such as the influence of rising atmospheric temperatures on ocean and permafrost temperatures. Scientists expect the full effects of near-term climate changes to play out over a period of decades to many centuries.

• Feedbacks that mostly further increase warming: Greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to positive (enhancing) and some negative (dampening) feedbacks within the Arctic system, which scientists expect in net to amplify warming and pursuant effects. For example, temperature-driven melting sea ice reduces reflection of incoming solar energy, leading to absorption by the Arctic Ocean and further warming of the ocean and the planet.

• Abrupt change risks: The freezing point for water, including permafrost, is one example of thresholds that certain Arctic systems may cross, leading to rapid state changes.

public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=1ce5edcb-540d-4c43-b264-56bdbb570755, which includes a similar phrase. Sen. Murkowski states “In April 2015, Senator Murkowski and Senator Angus King of Maine joined forces to establish the Senate Arctic Caucus. The Arctic Caucus is the first entity in Congress to bring attention to the laws and policies at stake in the Far North. The purpose of the Caucus is to convene members of Congress, subject matter experts, federal agency heads, and the public to confront policy questions and advance a coordinated investment in arenas such as national security, scientific research, commerce, global trade, the environment, maritime affairs, and other relevant issues impacting the Arctic region.” (Sen. Lisa Murkowski, “Arctic,” accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/issues/issues-and-priorities/arctic.)

57 This section was prepared by Jane Leggett, who was a Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division until her retirement from CRS on July 15, 2023.

58 Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, “Climate Change in Alaska.” The Great State of Alaska. Accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/dcra/ClimateChange.aspx.

59 Jason E Box et al., “Key Indicators of Arctic Climate Change: 1971–2017,” Environmental Research Letters 14, no. 4, April 2019.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 17

• Risks of irreversibilities: Some Arctic climate impacts, such as loss of sea ice and glaciers, may lead to system changes that scientists expect would be irreversible on a human timescale, even if temperatures stabilize (at a higher level than today).

Understanding remains incomplete regarding future Arctic climate changes and their implications for human and natural systems. With current knowledge, projections point to growing risks, as well as some opportunities.

The Arctic is interconnected to the rest of the globe through circulation of water, energy (e.g., heat), and carbon, including through the atmosphere and oceans. It is also connected through human systems of transport, energy and mineral production, tourism, and security. Consequently, Arctic changes are of import to both Arctic and non-Arctic regions of United States and the rest of the globe.

This section summarizes a variety of observed and projected climate changes in the Arctic and identifies some of their impacts on human and ecological systems.⁶⁰ Other sections in this report provide further discussion of implications for, for example, national security and energy production.

Warming Temperatures and a More Intense Water Cycle

The Arctic warmed at approximately three times the global average rate from 1971 to 2019, with the region’s surface temperature increasing by more than 3°C (5.5°F).⁶¹ Summers have warmed more than winters. In tandem are trends of fewer cold days, cold nights, frost days, and ice days in the North American Arctic.⁶² Researchers found that warming trends as well as climate cycles, including the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Arctic Oscillation, influence observed extreme temperatures, ice distribution, and other facets of the Arctic system.⁶³ In addition, positive feedbacks from the loss of summer sea ice and spring snow cover on land have amplified warming in the Arctic.⁶⁴

With warming, the water cycle has become more intense. The Arctic has experienced increasing precipitation and an increasing share of precipitation falling as rain. The first recorded rainfall at Greenland’s 10,500-foot Summit Station was on August 14, 2021.⁶⁵

Warming and increasing rainfall have led to permafrost thaw, glacier melt, and sea ice decline, leading to greater flows of organic matter and nutrients to Arctic near‐coastal zones, with implications for algae, ecosystems, fisheries and other systems.

60 Although much of Greenland is above the Arctic Circle, and many of the changes and implications apply also to Greenland, this section emphasizes other parts of the Arctic and does not attempt to summarize the often large and complex change in Greenland.

61 T.J. Ballinger et al., “Surface Air Temperature,” Arctic Program, Arctic Report Card 2021.

62 Alvaro Avila-Diaz et al., “Climate Extremes across the North American Arctic in Modern Reanalyses,” Journal of Climate 34, no. 7, April 1, 2021.

63 Ibid.

64 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Summary for Policymakers,” Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, 2019, https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/. (Hereinafter, SROCC SPM 2019.)

65 National Snow and Ice Data Center, “Rain at the Summit of Greenland,” August 18, 2021.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 18

Sea Ice Decline and Mobility

Arctic sea ice has declined in extent, area, and thickness over recent decades; it has become more mobile and its spatial distribution has shifted. The record low extents of Arctic sea ice in 2012 and 2007 (Figure 4 and Figure 5), as recorded by U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, increased scientific and policy attention on climate changes in the high north, and on the implications of projected ice-free⁶⁶ seasons in the Arctic Ocean within decades. Recent late summer minima may be unprecedented over the past 1,000 years.⁶⁷ (Some implications are discussed in sections of this report on Commercial Sea Transportation; Oil, Gas, and Mineral Exploration; and others.) The 2021 Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that “human influence is very likely the main driver of ... the decrease in Arctic sea ice area between 1979–1988 and 2010–2019 (about 40% in September and about 10% in March).”⁶⁸

Simulations under a wide range of future climate change scenarios indicate that the Arctic could be ice-free in late summers in the second half of this century in model simulations of low to very high greenhouse gas scenarios (Figure 5).⁶⁹ The first instances of an ice-free Arctic in late summers could occur by mid-century in all scenarios, although model simulations provide a wide range of results.⁷⁰ The mean results of model simulations reach ice-free seasons in the 2070s in the highest and low warming scenarios, and later in the very low scenarios. In an analysis of the most recent modeling, a selection of those models that “reasonably” simulate historical sea ice extent indicated that practically ice-free conditions may occur at global temperature increases of 1.3°C to 2.9°C above preindustrial

66 In scientific analyses, “ice-free” does not necessarily mean “no ice.” The definition of “ice-free” or sea ice “extent” or “area” varies across studies. Sea ice “extent” is one common measure, equal to the sum of the area of grid cells that have ice concentration of less than a set percentage—frequently 15%. For more information, see the National Snow and Ice Data Center, http://nsidc.org/seaice/data/terminology.html.

67 SROCC SPM 2019.

68 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policy Makers,” August 9, 2021. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/.

69 Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), “Arctic Climate Change Update 2021: Key Trends and Impacts. Summary for Policy-Makers,” Arctic Council, May 21, 2021; Marika Holland, Cecilia M. Bitz, and Bruno Tremblay, “Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea ice,” Geophysical Research Letters 33, no. L23503 (2006). But see also Julien Boé, Alex Hall, and Xin Qu, “Sources of spread in simulations of Arctic sea ice loss over the twenty-first century,” Climatic Change 99, no. 3 (April 1, 2010): 637-645; I. Eisenman and J. S. Wettlaufer, “Nonlinear threshold behavior during the loss of Arctic sea ice,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, no. 1 (January 6, 2009): 28-32; Dirk Notz, “The Future of Ice Sheets and Sea Ice: Between Reversible Retreat and Unstoppable Loss,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, no. 49 (December 8, 2009): 20590-20595.

70 Global climate models do not, in general, simulate past sea ice change realistically and tend to produce less decline in sea ice extent than the latest 15-year trend.

Figure 4. 2012 Record-Low Sea Ice Extent

(Compared with long-term median)

Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center, Sea Ice Index, accessed February 28, 2022.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 19

levels.⁷¹ Although sea ice would remain variable in extent and distribution, modeling of future sea ice conditions indicate opportunities for transport through the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route, extraction of potential oil and gas resources, and expanded fishing and tourism, though also increasing competition and potential security risks and of oil spills and maritime accidents.

Figure 5. Estimated Historical, Observed, and Projected September

Arctic Sea Ice Extent

Source: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), “Arctic Climate Change Update 2021: Key Trends and Impacts. Summary for Policy-Makers,” Arctic Council, May 21, 2021. Notes: NSIDC is the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, the source that synthesized the satellite observation data (the bold black line) in this figure. The “historical” values result from model simulations, showing the modeled mean and the ranges. The projections (in colors) are for a range of greenhouse gas scenarios and associated climate changes, with the means of results represented by lines. SSP means “Shared Socioeconomic Pathway” scenarios produced in support of the International Panel on Climate Change depicting high (SSP585), medium high (SSP30), low (SSP245) and very low (SSP126) scenarios. The shaded areas represent the ranges of numerical model estimates (number), either historical and projected. The horizontal line represents sea-ice areal extent of 1 million square kilometers, below which scientists consider the Arctic to be practically ice-free.

The U.S. Arctic Report Card 2021 noted, in addition, the importance of melting of Arctic land- based ice to experienced sea level rise globally:

In the 47-year period (1971–2017), the Arctic was the largest global source of sea-level rise contribution, 48% of the global land ice contribution 2003–2010 and 30% of the total sea-level rise since 1992. Temperature effects are dominant in land ice mass balance.

A special report of the IPCC stated that “for Arctic glaciers, different regional studies consistently indicate that in many places glaciers are now smaller than they have been in millennia.”⁷²

The Arctic Ocean has been undergoing additional changes: It has been acidifying—with some parts acidifying more rapidly than the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans.⁷³ Some scientists estimate that

71 The current temperature increase above the 1850-1900 average is about 1.1°C.

72 SROCC SPM 2019.

73 Di Qi et al., “Increase in Acidifying Water in the Western Arctic Ocean,” Nature Climate Change 7, no. 3, March 2017.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 20

acidification of the Arctic Ocean may increase enough by the 2030s to significantly influence coastal ecosystems.⁷⁴ Primary production in the ocean has increased, due to decreases in sea ice and increases in nutrient supply.

Land-Based Changes

Climate changes in the Arctic have important implications for human and natural land-based systems, through permafrost thawing, erosion, instability, and ecosystem shifts.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) concluded that an increase in coastal erosion on the North Slope of Alaska was “likely the result of several changing Arctic conditions, including declining sea-ice extent, increasing summertime sea-surface temperature, rising sea level, and possible increases in storm power and corresponding wave action.”⁷⁵ The USGS found that erosion has been occurring at an average rate of 1.4 meters annually and that, while some areas are accreting, others are eroding at rates as high as 20 meters per year. Coastal erosion poses risks for native communities, oil and gas infrastructure, and wildlife; adaptations to mitigate and manage adverse impacts can be costly and risky.

Warming temperatures have increased thawing of near-surface permafrost. “The majority of Arctic infrastructure is located in regions where permafrost thaw is projected to intensify by mid- century,” according to the IPCC special report on the cryosphere.⁷⁶ Existing infrastructure was not generally placed or engineered for the instability, posing risks to human safety and property, and potentially disruption. The IPCC report assessed that “about 20% of Arctic land permafrost is vulnerable to abrupt permafrost thaw and ground subsidence,”⁷⁷ increasing risks of sudden failures. According to one study, 30%–50% of critical circumpolar infrastructure may be at high risk by 2050. “Accordingly, permafrost degradation-related infrastructure costs could rise to tens of billions of U.S. dollars by the second half of the century.”⁷⁸ Other costs could be incurred for relocation of infrastructure and villages, and to manage habitat for subsistence wildlife and endangered and threatened species.

Impacts of climate change on species have been positive and negative. Longer growing seasons have resulted in vegetation growth around the Arctic with overall “greening,” though also some “browning” in some regions in some years. Woody shrubs and trees are projected to expand to cover 24%–52% of Arctic tundra by 2050.⁷⁹ Vegetation changes can provide amplifying feedbacks that increase temperature and permafrost instability. In particular, scientists have assessed significant methane emissions from some thawing peat bogs.

Potential area burned by wildfire could increase by 25% to 53% by 2100. This could affect, for example, forage for caribou and shifting competition between caribou and moose, with likely detriments to subsistence users of caribou.⁸⁰

74 U.S. Global Change Research Program, “Climate Science Special Report,” Fourth National Climate Assessment, vol. 1, October 2017, https://science2017.globalchange.gov/.

75 Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center, “Climate Impacts to Arctic Coasts,” U.S. Geological Survey, October 15, 2021.

76 SROCC SPM 2019.

77 SROCC SPM 2019.

78 Hjort, Jan, Dmitry Streletskiy, Guy Doré, Qingbai Wu, Kevin Bjella, and Miska Luoto, “Impacts of Permafrost Degradation on Infrastructure,” Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 3, no. 1 (January 2022): 24–38, https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s43017-021-00247-8.

79 SROCC SPM 2019.

80 SROCC SPM 2019.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 21

The IPCC special report on the cryosphere also found that

On Arctic land, a loss of globally unique biodiversity is projected as limited refugia exist for some High-Arctic species and hence they are outcompeted by more temperate species (medium confidence).⁸¹

It identified negative impacts also on food and water security in the Arctic, “disrupt[ing] access to, and food availability within, herding, hunting, fishing, and gathering areas, harming the livelihoods and cultural identity of Arctic residents including Indigenous populations.”⁸² More broadly, warming and ecosystem shifts have “increased risk of food- and waterborne diseases, malnutrition, injury, and mental health challenges especially among Indigenous peoples.”⁸³

Few studies have investigated the potential economic effects of the array of physical impacts. A report for the state of Alaska on the economic effects of climate change

estimated that five relatively certain, large effects that could be readily quantified would impose an annual net cost of $340–$700 million, or 0.6%–1.3% of Alaska’s GDP. This significant, but relatively modest, net economic effect for Alaska as a whole obscures large regional disparities, as rural communities face large projected costs while more southerly urban residents experience net gains.⁸⁴

The research did not consider “nonuse” impacts, such as on culture, subsistence harvests, or other nonmarket values, as well as additional sectors, such as military installations, housing, and others.

Another study estimating the effects of climate change on Alaskan infrastructure found “cumulative estimated expenses from climate-related damage to infrastructure without adaptation measures (hereinafter damages) from 2015 to 2099 totaled $5.5 billion (2015 dollars, 3% discount) for RCP8.5 [a high climate scenario] and $4.2 billion for RCP4.5 [a moderate climate scenario], suggesting that reducing greenhouse gas emissions could lessen damages by $1.3 billion this century.”⁸⁵ Costs were mostly due to road flooding and permafrost instability, and mostly in the interior and southcentral Alaska. It also concluded that adaptation measures could mostly reduce or entirely avoid the estimated economic losses for this land-based infrastructure.

Geopolitical Environment⁸⁶

Overview

Following the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and particularly after the founding of the Arctic Council in 1996, the Arctic states sought to maintain the Arctic as a region

81 SROCC SPM 2019.

82 SROCC SPM 2019.

83 SROCC SPM 2019.

84 Berman, Matthew, and Jennifer I. Schmidt, “Economic Effects of Climate Change in Alaska.” Weather, Climate, and Society 11, no. 2 (April 1, 2019): 245–58, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-18-0056.1. The five effects evaluated were change in value added in Alaska (value of shipments less cost of inputs purchased from outside Alaska) for specific industries; change in household cost of living; change in purchased input costs for businesses and governments; change in nonwage benefit flows to households, including subsistence benefits; and change in value of buildings and infrastructure.

85 Melvin, April M., Peter Larsen, Brent Boehlert, James E. Neumann, Paul Chinowsky, Xavier Espinet, Jeremy Martinich et al., “Climate Change Damages to Alaska Public Infrastructure and the Economics of Proactive Adaptation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 2 (January 10, 2017): E122–31, https://doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.1611056113.

86 This section was prepared by Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade (continued...)

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 22

of cooperation, low tension, peaceful resolution of disputes, and respect for international law—an approach sometimes referred to as the “Arctic spirit” or “High North, low tension.” The Nordic countries in particular were committed to this approach.

Over the past 10 to 15 years, the emergence of great power competition (also called strategic competition) between the United States, Russia, and China has introduced elements of competition and tension into the Arctic’s geopolitical environment. Russia’s increased military presence and operations in the Arctic—and responding actions by other Arctic states—are one source of competition and tension. China’s increased diplomatic and economic activities in the Arctic are another.

Some observers view the Arctic as having become an arena for geopolitical competition among the United States, Russia, and China,⁸⁷ or argue that the diminishment of Arctic ice and potentially increased maritime access to the region’s resources has prompted or could prompt a race for Arctic resources (or words to that effect) among Russia, China, the United States, and other countries.⁸⁸ Other observers argue that competitive aspects of the region’s geopolitical environment and the notion of a race for Arctic resources are sometimes overstated.⁸⁹

Impact of Russia’s War in Ukraine

Russia’s war in Ukraine beginning on February 24, 2022, has substantially affected the Arctic’s geopolitical environment in a number of ways, including but not necessarily limited to the following, some of which have added to tensions in the region:⁹⁰

Division. It incorporates material prepared by Kristin Archick, Specialist in European Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, and Derek E. Mix, Analyst in European Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.

87 See, for example, Danielle Bochove, “Why the Arctic Is Being Threatened by War and Climate Change,” Bloomberg, September 6, 2023; Emily Rauhala, “An Arctic ‘Great Game’ as NATO Allies and Russia Face Off in Far North,” Washington Post, July 17, 2023; Joel Mathis, “The New Cold War in the Arctic, Explained,” The Week, June 22, 2023; Jim Garamone, “Arctic Heating Up Literally and as Scene of Strategic Competition,” DOD News, April 5, 2023; Abbie Tingstad and Yuliya Shokh, “Great Power Competition Is on the Arctic Agenda,” The Hill, February 16, 2023; Jeremy Greenwood, “Great Power Competition and Overseas Basing in the Arctic,” Brookings Institution, February 2023, 9 pp.

88 See, for example, The Week Staff, “Under the Melting Ice: The Race for the Arctic’s Riches,” The Week, May 11, 2023; Margaret Sutherlin, “Who Owns the North Pole? A Race Is Underway to Decide,” Bloomberg, May 5, 2023; Elizabeth Buchanan, “Russia’s Gains in the Great Arctic Race,” War on the Rocks, May 4, 2023; Lisa Desjardins, Andrew Corkery, and Azhar Merchant, “Tensions Rise as Nations Race for Valuable Resources in the Arctic,” PBS, April 23, 2023; “Arctic Resources Race,” Wikipedia, updated April 8, 2023.

89 See, for example, Rebecca Pincus, “Small Ocean, Big Hype: Arctic Myths and Realities,” War on the Rocks, May 3, 2024; Anna Valberg, “War in the Arctic? Researchers Debunk Three Myths about the High North,” ScienceNorway.no, January 26, 2024; Jo Inge Bekkevold and Paal Sigurd Hilde, “Europe’s Northern Flank Is More Stable Than You Think,” Foreign Policy, July 28, 2023; P. Whitney Lackenbauer, Adam Lajeunesse, and Ryan Dean, “Why China Is Not a Peer Competitor in the Arctic,” Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs, October 3, 2022; Øystein Tunsjø, “The Great Hype: False Visions of Conflict and Opportunity in the Arctic,” Survival, 2020 (published online September 23, 2020); Thomas Graham and Amy Myers Jaffe, “There Is No Scramble for the Arctic,” Foreign Affairs, July 27, 2020; Jeremy Tasch, “Why the Talk of an ‘Artic Cold War’ Is Exaggeration,” Valdai Discussion Club, July 7, 2020; Danita Catherine Burke, “Why the New Arctic ‘Cold War’ is a Dangerous Myth,” The Conversation, December 13, 2018.

90 For general discussions of how Russia’s war in Ukraine beginning on February 24, 2022, has substantially affected the Arctic’s geopolitical environment, see, for example, Iselin Németh Winther and Andreas Østhagen, editors, The Big Picture of Arctic Geopolitics: An Actor-Oriented Analysis,” Fridtjof Nansen Institute, FNI Report 1/2024, 22 pp.; Gry Thomasen, Chiara Cervasio, and Mhairi McClafferty, Arctic Diplomacy at a Crossroads, Addressing Present and Future Geopolitical and Strategic Risk, British American Security Information Council (BASIC), December 2023, 31 pp.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 23

• Operations of Arctic Council substantially affected. Russia’s war in Ukraine beginning on February 24, 2022, has substantially affected the operations of the Arctic Council, prompting new or heightened questions about the future of the Arctic Council, Arctic governance, and cooperation in general among the eight Arctic states.⁹¹ Specific reported developments include the following: • On March 3, 2022, in response to Russia’s invasion, the A7 states announced that they would be “temporarily pausing participation in all meetings of the [Arctic] Council and its subsidiary bodies.”⁹²

• The Nordic Council of Ministers similarly stated that it was suspending its cooperation with Russia and Belarus,⁹³ and Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the EU suspended activities involving Russia within the Barents Euro-Arctic Council (BEAC), which was established in 1993 for collaboration primarily between Russia, Norway, Finland, and Sweden to promote stability and sustainable development in the Barents region. In September 2023, Russia announced that it would withdraw from BEAC, citing what it said was a failure by Finland to confirm the transfer of the BEAC presidency from Finland to Russia as scheduled in October 2023.⁹⁴

• The suspension of Arctic Council meetings did not prevent the chairmanship of the council from being transferred from Russia to Norway on May 11, 2023.

91 See, for example, Jennifer Spence, “The Future of Arctic Council Innovation: Charting a Course for Working-Level Cooperation,” Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, February 20, 2024; Emilie Canova and Pauline Pic, “The Arctic Council in Transition: Challenges and Perspectives for the New Norwegian Chairship,” Arctic Institute, June 13, 2023; Brett Simpson, “The Rise and Sudden Fall of the Arctic Council,” Foreign Policy, May 31, 2023; Abbie Tingstad and Stephanie Pezard, “What Is Next for the Arctic Council in the Wake of Russian Rule?” The Hill, May 14, 2023; Humeyra Pamuk, Gloria Dickie, and Gwladys Fouche, “Fears mount for the Arctic as cooperation with Russia stalls,” Reuters, May 9, 2023; Atle Staalesen, “‘Barents and Arctic Cooperation Can Continue without Russia,’” Barents Observer, March 7, 2023, Nong Hong, “As War in Ukraine Freezes the Arctic Council, How Will Asia Break the Ice?” South China Morning Post, February 25, 2023; Malte Humpert, “Cooperation with Russia in the Arctic is Virtually Impossible Says US Official,” High North News, February 16, 2023; Kai Kornhuber et al., The Disruption of Arctic Exceptionalism, Managing Environmental Change in Light of Russian Aggression, German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), February 2023, 18 pp.; Trine Jonassen, “Arctic Council Chairmanship: ‘Norway Knows How to Do It,’” High North News, January 31 (updated February 3), 2023; Benjamin J. Sacks, Marigold Black, and Peter Dortmans, “Arctic Governance Is in Trouble. The Antarctic Could Be Next,” RAND Blog, December 7, 2023; Karsten Friis, Elana Wilson Rowe, Mike Sfraga, and Ulf Sverdrup, editors, Navigating Breakup: Security Realities of Freezing Politics and Thawing Landscapes in the Arctic, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, January 2023, 63 pp.; Nima Khorrami and Andreas Raspotnik, “Forced to Look East? Russia, China, India, and the Future of Arctic Governance,” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, September 16, 2022.

92 U.S. Department of State, “Joint Statement on Arctic Council Cooperation Following Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine,” March 3, 2022.

93 See, for example, Niina Aagaard, “Nordic Council of Ministers Suspends All Co-operation with Russia,” Nordic Co- operation, March 3, 2022; Atle Staalesen, “Nordic Countries Halt All Regional Cooperation with Russia,” Barents Observer, March 6, 2022. For a press report on separate developments, see David Lochead, “Russian Invasion of Ukraine Creates Strain for Arctic Organization,” Nunatsiaq News, March 1, 2022; Eilís Quinn, “Sweden, Finland Pull Out of Arctic360 Conference in Toronto Where Russian Diplomats Scheduled to Attend,” Eye on the Arctic (Radio Canada International), February 25, 2022. See also Eye on the Arctic, “Russia High on Agenda at Nordic Council Meeting,” Eye on the Arctic (Radio Canada International), November 1, 2022.

94 Astri Edvardsen, “Russia Withdraws from the Barents Cooperation,” High North News, September 19, 2023 (updated September 29); “Russia withdraws from Barents Euro-Arctic Council,” Arctic Portal.org, September 19, 2023; Thomas Nilsen, “Lavrov Formally Withdraws Russia from Barents Cooperation,” Barents Observer, September 18, 2023. See also Hannah Thule and Thomas Nilsen, “Finland Mulls an End to Barents Cooperation,” Barents Observer, July 25, 2024.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 24

• In October 2022, China’s special envoy to the Arctic reportedly stated that China would not recognize the legitimacy of an Arctic Council that does not include Russia. He also reportedly stated that China would continue to cooperate in the Arctic with both the A7 states and Russia.⁹⁵

• On February 21, 2023, Russia published amendments to its Arctic policy statement that removed mentions of the Arctic Council.⁹⁶

• In May and June 2023, it was reported that while all cooperation with Russia would remain suspended, other activities of the Council and its working groups would resume in mid-June 2023.⁹⁷

• A June 2023 press report stated: “At the end of his tenure as chair of the Arctic Council’s senior officials committee in May, Russia’s Nikolai Korchunov said Moscow could withdraw from the organisation if it was not invited to participate in events during the Norwegian presidency.”⁹⁸

• A September 2023 press report stated that an August 29, 2023, meeting of all eight Arctic Council member states and the six Arctic Indigenous groups that are permanent participants had decided on guidelines for restarting the council’s working groups.⁹⁹

• In early February 2024, Russia’s ambassador-at-large for the Arctic reportedly stated that Russia would withdraw from the Arctic Council if the council’s activities council “do not correspond to Russia’s interests.”¹⁰⁰

95 Melody Schreiber, “China Will Not Recognize an Arctic Council Without Russia, Envoy Says,” ArcticToday, October 17, 2022; Trine Jonassen, “China: ‘Will Not Acknowledge Arctic Council Without Russia,’” High North News, October 15 (updated October 18), 2022. See also Astri Edvardsen, “China Wants to Support Norway in Restoring the Arctic Council,” High North News, April 28, 2023.

96 See, for example, Malte Humpert, “Russia Amends Arctic Policy Prioritizing ‘National Interest’ and Removing Cooperation Within Arctic Council,” High North News, February 23, 2023. See also Astri Edvardsen, “The Arctic Council With New Decisive Step Forward,” High North News, February 29, 2024; Ellis Quinn, “Arctic Council Resumes Working Group Meetings, Held Virtually,” Eye on the Arctic (Radio Canada International), March 1, 2024.

97 Trine Jonassen, “The Arctic Council Resumes Some Activities in Mid-June,” High North News, May 16 (updated May 19), 2023; Eilís Quinn, “Seven Western Countries on Arctic Council to Resume Limited Work in Forum,” Eye on the Arctic, June 8, 2022; Melody Schreiber, “Arctic Council Nations to Resume Limited Cooperation—Without Russia,” ArcticToday, June 8, 2022. Nikolaj Skydsgaard, “Arctic Council Countries to Resume Limited Work Excluding Russia,” Reuters, June 8, 2022.

98 Richard Milne, “Arctic Chill: Western Nations Fear China and Russia Will Exploit Regional Tensions,” Financial Times, June 5, 2023. See also Astri Edvardsen, “Lavrov: ‘The Arctic Council’s Future Depends on Whether a Civilized Dialogue Can Continue,’” High North News, May 15, 2023; Astri Edvardsen, “Russia: ‘The Risk of Weakening the Arctic Council Should Not Be Underestimated,’” High North News, May 12, 2023; Trine Jonassen, “‘Russia Will Stay in The Arctic Council as Long as it Serves Our Interests,’” High North News, May 11 (updated May 12), 2023; Astri Edvardsen, “Russia’s Top Arctic Diplomat: Long-Term Cooperation in the Arctic Requires Conditions Now Lost,” High North News, May 3, 2023.

99 Astri Edvardsen, “Light at the End of the Tunnel for the Arctic Council,” High North News, September 12 (updated November 21), 2023; Eilís Quinn, “Arctic Council Charting Way Forward to Resume Work Says Norwegian SAO,” Barents Observer, September 6, 2023. See also “Arctic Council Continues Steps Towards Resuming Expert Group Work,” Eye on the Arctic (Radio Canada International), October 11, 2023; Trine Jonassen, “Arctic Council After Russia’s Handover: ‘We Are Still Here,’” High North News, October 23, 2023. See also Gwladys Fouche and Gloria Dickie, “West, Russia Manage Limited Cooperation in Arctic Despite Chill in Ties,” Reuters, May 14, 2024.

100 Trine Jonassen (translation by Birgitte Annie Molid Martinussen), “Russia Threatens to Withdraw From the Arctic Council,” High North News, February 7 (updated February 15), 2024; Daniel Cusick, “Russia Threatens to Quit Arctic Council,” Politico Pro, February 9, 2024.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 25

• On February 14, 2024, it was reported that Russia had suspended annual payments to the Arctic Council until “real work” resumes at the Council with the participation of all member states.¹⁰¹

• On February 28, 2024, the Arctic Council stated that “consensus was reached for the gradual resumption of official Working Group meetings in a virtual format, enabling project-level work to further advance. In February [2024], the eight Arctic States, in consultation with the Indigenous Permanent Participant organizations, reached consensus to gradually resume official Working Group meetings in a virtual format. Prior to this update, Working Groups advanced project work and decision-making only via written procedures after consensus was reached in August 2023.”¹⁰²

• Concerns about Russia’s Arctic military activities heightened. For the A7 states, Russia’s war in Ukraine has heightened concerns about the purpose behind Russia’s military modernization in the Arctic, and reinforced cooperative security links among the seven countries.¹⁰³ Russia reportedly has withdrawn military personnel and equipment from its Arctic bases to help provide reinforcements for its war in Ukraine, and some of these forces reportedly have been destroyed in combat operations there.¹⁰⁴ Other press reports state that, while Russia’s Arctic military forces have been degraded as a result of the war, Russia’s military modernization in the Arctic has nevertheless continued.¹⁰⁵

101 Lidia Kelly, “Russia Suspends Annual Payments to Arctic Council, RIA Agency Reports,” Reuters, February 14, 2024. See also Thomas Nilsen, “’We Should Not Close Those Doors and Throw the Keys Away,’ Says Norway PM on Arctic Council Cooperation with Russia,” Barents Observer, February 14, 2024; Jennifer Spence, “Russia Suspends Funding for the Arctic Council: Wake up Call Not Death Knell,” High North News, February 15 (updated February 17), 2024.

102 “Arctic Council Advances Resumption of Project-Level Work,” Arctic Council, February 28, 2024.

103 See, for example, Astri Edvardsen (translation by Birgitte Annie Molid Martinussen), “NATO’s Military Leader: “We Must Be Prepared for Military Conflicts Arising in the Arctic,” High North News, October 30 (updated November 1), 2023; Barry Gardiner, “As the Ice Melts, a Perilous Russian Threat Is Emerging in the Arctic,” Guardian, June 13, 2023.

104 See, for example, Atle Staalesen, “Counting of Killed Komi Warriors Reaches 400,” Barents Observer, January 17, 2024; Atle Staalesen, “Deputy Commander of Russian Arctic Brigades Is Killed in Ukraine,” Barents Observer, November 30, 2023; Danielle Wallace, “Russian Troops Withdraw from Norway Border in Drop Since Start of Ukraine War: Official,” Fox News, September 17, 2023; Atle Staalesen, “More Indigenous Men from Russian Arctic Are Killed in Moscow’s War of Aggression,” Barents Observer, September 7, 2023; Atle Staalesen, “Anniversary Celebrations in Arctic Spetsnaz Base Sputnik as Number of Marines Killed in Ukraine Rises,” Barents Observer, May 5, 2023; Atle Staalesen, “Russia’s Arctic Brigade in Alakurtti Is Counting Its Many Dead,” Barents Observer, February 22, 2023; Malte Humpert, “Ukraine War Taking Toll on Arctic Material and Personnel,” High North News, February 17, 2023; Thomas Nilsen, “Land Forces at Kola Reduced to One-Fifth, Norwegian Intelligence Says,” Barents Observer, February 13, 2023; David Axe, “Russia Built A Dozen Air-Defense Vehicles For War In The Arctic. Then Sent Them To Ukraine To Get Blown Up.” Forbes, February 4, 2023. See also Colin Wall and Njord Wegge, The Russian Arctic Threat, Consequences of the Ukraine War, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), January 2023, 16 pp.

105 See, for example, Mathieu Boulègue, The Impact of the War Against Ukraine on Russia's Arctic Posture: Hard Power on Vulnerable Ice, Wilson Center, June 2024, 42 pp.; Astri Edvardsen (translation by Birgitte Annie Molid Martinussen), “Russia’s Forces in the High North: Weakened by the War, Yet Still A Multidomain Threat,” High North News, January 12 (updated January 16), 2023; Holly Williams and Analisa Novak, “Russia Ramps Up Its Military Presence in the Arctic Nearly 2 Years into the Ukraine War,” CBS News, December 18, 2023; Mika Mäkeläinen, “Satellite Images: New Buildings Appear at Russian Military Bases Near Finnish Border,” Yle, September 10, 2023 (updated September 13); Justin Katz, “ Admiral Sounds Alarm amid Rising Russian, Chinese Movement in High North,” Breaking Defense, September 5, 2023; Nick Paton Walsh and Sarah Dean, “Russia’s Militarization of the Arctic Shows No Sign of Slowing Down,” CNN, December 22, 2022. See also Heather A. Conley, Sophie Arts, (continued...)

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 26

• Finland and Sweden become members of NATO. Russia’s war in Ukraine prompted Finland and Sweden to apply for NATO membership.¹⁰⁶ • On April 4, 2023, Finland became a member of NATO,¹⁰⁷ which converted Finland’s 833-mile border with Russia¹⁰⁸ into a NATO-Russia frontier. More than 300 miles of this border (i.e., more than 36% of the border’s length) is north of the Arctic Circle.¹⁰⁹ (By way of comparison, Norway’s border with Russia, all of which is above the Arctic Circle, is about 123 miles in length.)¹¹⁰ Almost one-third of Finland’s territory is north of the Arctic Circle.¹¹¹ In these ways, Finland becoming a member of NATO has increased the Arctic as an area of focus for NATO.¹¹²

• On March 7, 2024, Sweden became a member of NATO, which further increased the Arctic as an area of focus for NATO,¹¹³ given that about 15% of Sweden’s land area is north of the Arctic Circle.¹¹⁴

Kristine Berzina, and Mathieu Boulègue, Defending America’s Northern Border and Its Arctic Approaches Through Cooperation With Allies and Partners, German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), August 2023, 31 pp.

106 See, for example, Trine Jonassen (translation by Birgitte Annie Molid Martinussen), “Sanna Marin: ‘Everything Changed Overnight,’” High North News, January 11, 2024.

107 For additional discussion, see CRS Insight IN11949, NATO: Finland Joins as Sweden’s Accession Faces Delay, by Kristin Archick, Paul Belkin, and Andrew S. Bowen.

108 Finland’s border with Russia is usually said to have a length of 1,340 kilometers, or 832.6 miles. (See, for example, U.K Parliament, House of Lords, European Union Committee, 9^th Report of Session 2007–08, FRONTEX: the EU External Borders Agency, Report with Evidence, Ordered to be printed 26 February 2008 and published 5 March 2008, Tables 1, 2, and 3 [pages 13 and 14]); Salla Korpela, “A Border That Once Divided Now Unites,” This Is Finland, June 2008; Henry Ridgwell, “Will Finland’s 1,300-Kilometer Border Become NATO-Russia Frontier?” Voice of America, May 12, 2022; James Frater and Xiaofei Xu, “Finland Plans to Start Building a Fence on Russian Border Next Year,” CNN, November 18, 2022; Jari Tanner, “Finland to Start Building Fence on Russian Border Next Year,” Associated Press, November 18, 2022.

109 Source: CRS measurement, February 27, 2023.

110 Source: Norway’s border with Russia, which was previously said to have a length of 195.7 kilometers, was resurveyed and in 2018 was determined to have a length of 197.7 kilometers (or about 122.8 miles), with the difference attributed to changes in the flow of a river and improvements in measuring devices. (See Thomas Nilsen, “Russia Just Got a “Longer” Border to Norway,” Barents Observer, September 26, 2018. See also, for example, Nina Berglund, “Norway Tightens Russian Border Control,” NewsinEnglish.no, October 2, 2022; Astri Edvardsen, “Norway To Strengthen Control on the Border With Russia–And Is Ready to Close It At Short Notice,” High North News, October 3 [updated October 4], 2022.)

111 See, for example, “Finland,” Arctic Council, undated, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://arctic-council.org/about/ states/finland/; “Finland,” Arctic Institute, updated on August 1, 2022; “Finland,” Britannica, updated February 21, 2023.

112 See, for example, Heather A. Conley and Sophie Arts, NATO’s Policy and Posture in the Arctic: Revisiting Allied Capabilities and Command Plans, German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), July 5, 2023, 6 pp.; Anne Kauranen and Johan Ahlander, “In NATO’s New North, Fresh Chances to Contain Moscow,” Reuters, July 3, 2023; Ruby Mellen and Dylan Moriarty, “Four Maps Explain How Finland Could Alter NATO’s Security,” Washington Post, May 19, 2022 (updated April 3, 2023); Janne Kuusela, “As a New Arctic Ally, Finland Contributes to Arctic Security and Defence,” Wilson Center, March 1, 2024.

113 See, for example, Henrik Breitenbauch and Benjamin Jensen, “A New Nordic NATO?” Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), July 10, 2024; Rachael Gosnell and Benjamin Jensen, “NATO and the Arctic,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, July 10, 2024; Sophie Arts, “The NATO Washington Summit and the Arctic,” German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), July 2, 2024; James Stavridis, “Sweden and Finland Give NATO an Arctic Opportunity,” Bloomberg, July 13, 2023.

114 Source for 15% figure: “Climate of Sweden,” Britannica, undated, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.britannica.com/place/Sweden/Climate. Another source states “The two northernmost counties [of Sweden], Västerbotten and Norrbotten, are defined as Sweden’s Arctic territory. This region represents about one-third (continued...)

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 27

• Russia’s defense minister reportedly stated in December 2022 that in response to Finland and Sweden seeking to join NATO, Russia would reorganize some of its military forces near the Nordic countries.¹¹⁵

• Increased Russian cooperation in Arctic with China. Russia’s diplomatic isolation from the A7 states in the Arctic has led to increased Russian cooperation with China (and other countries) in the Arctic¹¹⁶—a development that could strengthen China’s presence and activities in the region and affect views among observers in the A7 states and elsewhere regarding China’s motivations and goals for its Arctic activities and China’s ability to work with the A7 states on matters relating to the Arctic.¹¹⁷

• Arctic scientific research projects disrupted. Actions taken by governments in response to Russia’s war in Ukraine substantially disrupted international scientific research projects in the Arctic that involved Russian participation.¹¹⁸

of Sweden’s territory, but is populated with just over half of a million inhabitants—more sparsely populated than the southern parts of the country.” (Sweden, Arctic Council, undated, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://arctic- council.org/about/states/sweden/.)

115 See Thomas Nilsen, “Shoigu Vows More Troops Near Nordic Countries,” Barents Observer, December 21, 2022.

116 See, for example, Heather A. Conley, Sophie Arts, Bonnie S. Glaser, Kristine Berzina, and Jaine Archambeau, A New Era of Arctic Geopolitics: Russia-PRC Strategic Alignment Is Driving Unprecedented Regional Collaboration, German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), May 2024 (posted online July 18, 2024), 10 pp.; Luke Coffey, “Where The Ice Is Melting Between Beijing And Moscow – Analysis,” Eurasia Review, July 6, 2024; “China and Russia Have Chilling Plans for the Arctic,” Economist, June 19, 2024; Alexander Dalziel, Eurasian North – The geopolitics of Russia and China in the Arctic, Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MIL), 2024 (posted online June 13, 2024), 40 pp.; Jay Heisler, “China’s Shrinking Arctic Ambitions Are Seen as Confined Largely to Russia,” VOA, May 17, 2024; Aaron Mc Nicholas, “Breaking the Ice, Russia and China’s Shifting Relations Are Helping to Encourage a Flood of Chinese Companies into the Arctic,” Wire China, February 25, 2024; Ken Dilanian, “Russia’s Isolation Is Forcing It to Look to China for Support in the Arctic, Raising U.S. Concerns,” NBC News, February 7, 2024; Shifting Ice, Russia’s Increasing Reliance on the Private Sector and the PRC in the Arctic, Strider Technologies, undated, posted online February 7, 2024, 17 pp.; Daniel Cusick, “Russia-China Partnership Prompts New US Arctic Strategy,” Politico Pro, January 3, 2024 (a similar article was published as Daniel Cusick and E&E News, “Are Russia and China Teaming Up to Control the Arctic?” Scientific American, January 3, 2024). See also Alina Bykova, “NATO Has Always Been an Arctic Alliance (Part I),” Arctic Institute, May 28, 2024; Alina Bykova, “NATO Has Always Been an Arctic Alliance (Part II),” Arctic Institute, June 11, 2024.

117 See, for example, Austin Ramzy, “China Is Gaining Long-Coveted Role in Arctic, as Russia Yields,” Wall Street Journal, October 2, 2023; Paul Goble, “China Strengthening Its Position in Northern Russia and the Arctic Sea,” Eurasia Daily Monitor, September 28, 2023; Faustine Ngila, “China Is Cementing Its Position as an Arctic Superpower through Russia,” Quartz, April 20, 2023; Matthew P. Funaiole, Brian Hart, Joseph S. Bermudez Jr., and Aidan Powers- Riggs, “Frozen Frontiers, China’s Great Power Ambitions in the Polar Regions,” Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), April 18, 2023; Paul Goble, “Amid Russia’s Problems, China Assumes a Larger Role in the Arctic,” Eurasia Daily Monitor, March 28, 2023; Matti Puranen and Sanna Kopra, “Finland and the Demise of China’s Polar Silk Road,” China Brief, December 30, 2022; Marc Lanteigne, “China and the ‘Two Arctics,’” Diplomat, October 18, 2022; Danielle Bochove, “NATO-China Tension Over Ukraine Flares at Conference in Iceland,” Bloomberg, October 15, 2022; Kristin Huang, “Warm Russian Ties Are Key to China’s Arctic Aspirations: Report,” South China Morning Post, October 2, 2022.

118 See, for example, Megan Gannon, “War In Ukraine Causes Disruption To Arctic Research,” Nome Nugget, February 22, 2024; Malte Humpert, “Lack of Russian Data Reduces Understanding of Climate Change in the Arctic,” High North News, February 2, 2024; Martin Breum, “The Lack of Data from Russia May Render Arctic Climate Forecasting Meaningless,” Arctic Business Journal, January 23, 2024; Rebecca Hersher, “Why the War in Ukraine is Bad for Climate Science,” NPR, January 22, 2024; Efrén López-Blanco et al., “Towards an Increasingly Biased View on Arctic Change,” Nature, February 2024 (published online January 22, 2024): 152-155; Agence France-Presse (AFP), “Russia’s Isolation Takes Toll on Arctic Climate Science,” France 24, December 17, 2023; Saleem H. Ali, “Arctic Science Diplomacy With Russia,” Forbes, August 31, 2023; Warren Cornwall, “‘We are cut off.’ Tensions with Russia Are Hobbling Arctic Research,” Science, May 3, 2023; Dino Grandoni, “Why Russia’s War in Ukraine Is (continued...)

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 28

• Russian Arctic oil and gas operations and exports impacted. Soon after the start of Russia’s war in Ukraine, several major oil companies and investors announced that they were withdrawing from Russian resource development or not pursuing new projects with Russia, including in the Arctic.¹¹⁹ Western sanctions have reportedly impeded Russian energy projects in the Arctic.¹²⁰ A July 2023 press report stated: “Major American providers of oilfield services supplied Russia with millions of dollars in equipment for months after its invasion of Ukraine, helping to sustain a critical part of its economy even as Western nations launched sanctions aimed at starving the Russian war effort.”¹²¹ In September 2023, the United States announced further sanctions against Russia’s Arctic energy activities amid reports that previous Western sanctions were having only limited impact.¹²² At the same time, exports of Russian oil to India and China reportedly have increased, with some of the exports to China using the Northern Sea Route (NSR), an Arctic sea route that runs along Russia’s northern coastline.¹²³

Bad News for Polar Bears, Too,” Washington Post, April 15, 2023; Karen van Loon, “The Like-Minded, The Willing... and The Belgians: Arctic Scientific Cooperation after February 24 2022,” Arctic Institute, March 21, 2023; Ed Struzik, “How Tensions With Russia Are Jeopardizing Key Arctic Research,” Yale Environment 360, February 7, 2023; Lori Valigra, “Arctic Researchers Forced to Modify Projects amid Geopolitical Tensions with Russia,” Science Business, November 21, 2022; Gastautor, “Political Tensions Lead to ‘Gaps’ in Scientific Data in the Arctic Region, Polar Journal,” September 10, 2022.

119 Melody Schreiber, “Major Oil Companies and Investors Pull Back from Russian Arctic Oil and Gas,” ArcticToday, March 5, 2022.

120 See, for example, Brendan Cole, “Russia's Arctic Gas Project Faces Uncertainty as Production Crashes,” Newsweek, July 17, 2024; Malte Humpert, “U.S. Targets Future Russian Energy Projects in Arctic in New Round of Sanctions,” High North News, June 13, 2024; Vladimir Milov, “Oil, Gas, and War: The Effect of Sanctions on the Russian Energy Industry,” Atlantic Council, May 23, 2024; Elizaveta Vereykina, “Shipments of Liquefied Gas from the Russian Arctic Could Be Stopped This Summer,” Barents Observer, May 15, 2024; Stephen Stapczynski, “How Western Sanctions Are Strangling Putin’s Arctic Gas Ambitions,” Blomberg, May 4, 2024; Malte Humpert, “New U.S. Sanctions Target Arctic LNG 2 Blocking Red Box Shipping Company,” High North News, May 2, 2024; Atle Staalesen, “New U.S Sanctions Take Aim at Russian Arctic Shipping,” Barents Observer, May 2, 2024; Anna Hirtenstein and Georgi Kantchev, “The U.S. Is Trying to Cripple Russia’s Vast Arctic LNG Project,” Wall Street Journal, April 14, 2024; Atle Staalesen, “Sanctions Are About to Wreck Moscow's Grand Arctic Projects,” Barents Observer, April 8, 2024; Jocelyn Trainer, Nicholas Lokker, Kristen Taylor, and Uliana Certan, “Sanctions by The Numbers: The Russian Energy Sector,” Center for a New American Security (CNAS), April 4, 2024; Malte Humpert, “Arctic: The War’s Impact on Russia’s Northern Energy Ambitions,” High North News, March 18, 2024; Malte Humpert, “Delivery of Final Modules for Russia’s Arctic LNG 2 Project Highlights Challenge of Designing Effective Sanctions,” High North News, March 4, 2024; Malte Humpert, “No Shipments from Russia's Arctic LNG 2 Until March as Sanctions Block Delivery of LNG Carriers,” High North News, February 9 (updated February 14), 2024; Sergey Sukhankin, “US Sanctions Hamper Russia’s LNG Strategy in the Arctic,” Eurasia Daily Monitor, January 9, 2024.

121 Ed Davey, “Top US Firms Supplied Equipment to Keep Russian Oil Flowing after Ukraine Invasion,” Associated Press, July 18, 2023.

122 Department of State, “Imposing Further Sanctions in Response to Russia’s Illegal War Against Ukraine,” fact sheet, September 14, 2023; Malte Humpert, “US Further Tightens Sanctions Screw Targeting Russian Arctic Gas Projects,” High North News, September 20 (updated September 21), 2023; Atle Staalesen, “Americans Attack Russian Arctic: New Sanctions Take Aim at LNG and Mining,” Barents Observer, September 15, 2023; Malte Humpert, “Transport of LNG Modules to Russia Continues, Calling Effectiveness of EU Sanctions Into Question,” High North News, September 11, 2023.

123 See, for example, Patsy Widakuswara, “Russia Shipping More Oil to Chinese Ports via Arctic Route,” VOA, October 4, 2023; Malte Humpert, “Dangerous Waters: Ukraine War Could Divert Oil Shipments from Black Sea to Arctic Ocean,” High North News, August 15 (updated August 21), 2023; Malte Humpert, “Russian Crude Oil Now Flowing To China Via Arctic Ocean,” High North News, August 3 (updated August 4), 2023; Dmitry Zhdannikov and Nidhi Verma, “Obscure Traders Ship Half Russia’s Oil Exports to India, China after Sanctions,” Reuters, July 27, (continued...)

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 29

October 2021 National Intelligence Estimate

A National Intelligence Estimate by the National Intelligence Council on climate change and international responses that are increasing challenges to U.S. national security that was released in October 2021 (i.e., a few months before the start of Russia’s war in Ukraine) states the following about the Arctic (emphasis as in original):

Key Judgment 2: The increasing physical effects of climate change are likely to exacerbate cross-border geopolitical flashpoints as states take steps to secure their interests. The reduction in sea ice already is amplifying strategic competition in the Arctic over access to its natural resources....

We assess that Arctic and non-Arctic states almost certainly will increase their competitive activities as the region becomes more accessible because of warming temperatures and reduced ice. Competition will be largely economic but the risk of miscalculation will increase modestly by 2040 as commercial and military activity grows and opportunities are more contested.

• Diminishing sea ice probably will increase access to shipping routes that can reduce trade times between Europe and Asia by about 40 percent for some vessels. In addition, onshore oil and natural gas deposits, as well as an estimated $1 trillion worth of precious metals and minerals will become more available, but some high-cost offshore oil and gas projects could become unprofitable if the energy transition speeds up.

• Warming ocean temperatures probably will push Bering Sea fish stocks northward into the Arctic Ocean, according to a NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] study, which could increase commercial and illegal fishing activity in the region and exacerbate regional disputes between Arctic and non-Arctic states over fishing rights.

• Coastal erosion and thawing permafrost will damage critical infrastructure. Massive investment in infrastructure would be needed to maximize the economic potential of the region, ranging from new ports to mining, offering foreign powers an opportunity to gain a foothold by investing in new infrastructure and rebuilding and hardening existing infrastructure.

Military activity is likely to increase as Arctic and non-Arctic states seek to protect their investments, exploit new maritime routes, and gain strategic advantages over rivals.

The increased presence of China and other non-Arctic states very likely will amplify concerns among Arctic states as they perceive a challenge to their respective security and economic interests. China, France, India, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom have released Arctic strategies mostly focused on economic opportunities, but some address security issues, which has prompted Russian policymakers to repeatedly state since 2018 that non-Arctic countries do not have a military role in the region.

Contested economic and military activities will increase the risk of miscalculation, and deescalating tensions is likely to require the adaptation of existing or creation of new forums to address bilateral or multilateral security concerns among Arctic states.

2023; Lazaro Gamio, Leanne Abraham, Ana Swanson, and Alex Travelli, “How India Profits From Its Neutrality in the Ukraine War,” New York Times, June 22, 2023; Grant W. Turner, “Russia’s Arctic Crude Exports to China and India Increase,” Eurasia Daily Monitor, February 21, 2023; Malte Humpert, “Russia Reroutes Arctic Oil To China and India as Result of EU Sanctions,” High North News, January 16, 2023. See also Sergey Sukhankin, “Russo-Indian Economic Ties During Wartime: Oil, Currency and the Arctic,” Eurasian Daily Monitor, January 31, 2023; Florence Tan and Nidhi Verma, “Russia Sends More Arctic Oil To China, India after Sanctions,” Reuters, January 5, 2023. See also Pier Paolo Raimondi, The Role of the Arctic in Russia’s Energy Strategy: Features, Objectives and Perspectives following Russia’s War in Ukraine, Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), 2024 (posted online February 14, 2024), 45 pp.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 30

Although the scope of the Arctic Council—the leading intergovernmental forum promoting cooperation among Arctic states—specifically excludes military security, Russia intends to broach security concerns with the other Arctic states while chairing the council from 2021 to 2023, according to Russian officials’ public statements, and may propose alternate forums to discuss those issues....

Overt military action, especially by a non-Arctic state, that significantly escalates tension in the region and results in a sidelining of Arctic diplomacy would challenge our judgment that increased activity in the Arctic, while raising the possibility of miscalculation, is unlikely to result in outright conflict because of the harsh operating environment and existing mechanisms for cooperation. Persistent challenges to Russia’s supremacy of the Northern Sea Route [NSR]¹²⁴ by a non-Arctic state’s military could result in armed conflict with Russia if diplomatic negotiations had stalled and foreign militaries continued to operate in what Moscow views as its territorial waters. Alternatively, if a non- Arctic state, especially China, were to begin regular, large-scale military operations in the area to protect an economic foothold in the region, the risk of conflict with Arctic states could increase and contribute to a buildup of forces.¹²⁵

Arctic Governance

Prior to Russia’s war in Ukraine, great power competition and increased human activities in the Arctic resulting from the diminishment of Arctic ice put a spotlight on the issue of Arctic governance and the limits of the Arctic Council as a governing body.¹²⁶ As noted earlier, Russia’s war in Ukraine has prompted new or heightened questions about the future of the Arctic Council and Arctic governance.

Regarding the limits of the council as a governing body, the council states that it “does not and cannot implement or enforce its guidelines, assessments or recommendations. That responsibility belongs to each individual Arctic State. The Arctic Council’s mandate, as articulated in the Ottawa Declaration, explicitly excludes military security.”¹²⁷ Arctic security issues currently can be addressed, to some degree at least, through other existing mechanisms, such as the Arctic Security Forces Roundtable (ASFR) and the Arctic Chiefs of Defense (ACHOD) Forum.

Prior to Russia’s war in Ukraine, China raised questions as to whether the Arctic Council as currently constituted and the current broader legal framework for the Arctic should continue to be

124 The NSR is an Arctic sea route connecting Europe to East Asia that runs generally along Russia’s Arctic coast.

125 Office of the Director of National Intelligence, National Intelligence Council, Climate Change and International Responses Increasing Challenges to US National Security Through 2040, National Intelligence Estimate, NIC-NIE- 2021-10030-A, pp. 7, 8, 16. For a discussion of the intelligence community’s approach to covering the Arctic, see Marisol Maddox and Lyston Lea, The Intelligence Community Must Evolve To Meet the Reality of Arctic Change, Wilson Center Polar Institute, Polar Perspectives, no. 13, May 2023, 11 pp.

126 See, for example, Benjamin J. Sacks et al., Exploring Gaps in Arctic Governance, Identifying Potential Sources of Conflict and Mitigating Measures, RAND, 2021, 29 pp. (report RRA1007.1); Joshua Tallis, “The Phantom of Arctic Misgovernance,” War on the Rocks, June 11, 2021; Ebru Caymaz, “Rethinking Governance in Time of Pandemics in the Arctic,” Arctic Institute, January 14, 2021; Ian Birdwell, “Arctic Governance: Keeping The Arctic Council On Target,” Center for International Maritime Security (CIMSEC), July 29, 2020; Benjamin Chiacchia, “The Case for an Arctic Treaty,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, May 2020; Rashmi Ramesh, “Changing Geopolitics of the Arctic: Challenges for Governance,” IndraStra, April 9, 2020; Angus Parker, “Looking North: How Should the Arctic Be Governed?” Geographical (UK), March 17, 2020; Kevin McGwin, “An Arctic Treaty Has Been Rejected by the Region’s Leaders. Again; Academics Will Tell You the Idea of an Arctic Treaty Sounds Terribly Exciting. Diplomats Think It Is Just Terrible,” ArcticToday, February 12, 2020; Marc Lanteigne, “So You Want to Write an Arctic Treaty?” Over the Circle, February 10, 2020; Heather Exner-Pirot et al., “Form and Function: The Future of the Arctic Council,” Arctic Institute, February 5, 2019.

127 Arctic Council, “About the Arctic Council,” accessed March 7, 2024, at https://arctic-council.org/en/about/.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 31

the principal means for addressing issues relating to the Arctic, and had begun to use other approaches for influencing Arctic governance.¹²⁸

Relative Priority of Arctic in U.S. Policymaking

In light of great power competition and increased human activities in the Arctic resulting from the diminishment of Arctic ice, some observers argue that there is a need to devote more U.S. attention and resources to the region.¹²⁹ On the other hand, great power competition is also being expressed in Europe, the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific, Africa, and Latin America. In a situation of finite U.S. policymaker attention and resources, the Arctic competes with these other regions for attention and resources. Some observers argue that the United States is not allocating sufficient attention or resources to defend and promote its interests in the Arctic.¹³⁰ A September 2023 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report stated

Management roles for advancing U.S. Arctic priorities span the federal government…. While many federal entities engage with foreign partners on Arctic issues, the Department of State serves as the lead for Arctic diplomacy efforts….

Stakeholders identified five factors that facilitated and five factors that hindered the federal government’s management of U.S. Arctic priorities. For example, stakeholders identified U.S. Arctic expertise and engagement as factors that facilitated its influence in the Arctic Council. However, some stakeholders said that the Arctic Executive Steering Committee and the broader federal government face various challenges related to interagency coordination that hinder implementation of U.S. Arctic priorities outlined in the [October] 2022 [Arctic] strategy.

Stakeholders identified three factors pertaining to State’s structures that facilitated and two factors that hindered State’s management of U.S. Arctic priorities. For example, stakeholders identified continuity within the Senior Arctic Official position and supporting office as a factor that has deepened institutional knowledge for Arctic Council work, facilitating efforts to promote U.S. priorities. However, some stakeholders identified gaps in leadership and limited convening authority as factors that had hindered management. Many stakeholders viewed the announcement of the Ambassador-at-Large for the Arctic Region position positively but identified elements State and the new Ambassador should consider to manage U.S. Arctic priorities successfully going forward. These elements include consistency in position and title, a formalized office structure, clarity of

128 See, for example, Pan Yixuan, “Global Governance Needed for Arctic Affairs,” China Daily, May 10, 2019; Zhang Yao, “Ice Silk Road Framework Welcomed by Countries, Sets New Direction for Arctic Cooperation,” Global Times, April 7, 2019; Liu Caiyu, “China’s Role in Arctic Governance ‘Cannot Be Ignored,’” Global Times, November 22, 2018; Harriet Moynihan, “China Expands Its Global Governance Ambitions in the Arctic,” Chatham House, October 15, 2018; Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., “China & Russia In The Arctic: Axis Of Ambivalence,” Breaking Defense, July 6, 2018; Nengye Liu and Michelle Lim, “How Arctic Governance Could Become a Testing Ground for Sino-US Relations,” The Conversation, March 29, 2017.

129 See, for example, Kenneth R. Rosen, “A Battle for the Arctic Is Underway. And the U.S. Is Already Behind,” Politico, December 17 (updated December 18), 2022; Daniel Kochis and Johnathan Little, “As Russia Invests in Arctic, America Falls Behind,” Heritage Foundation, November 3, 2021; Heather A. Conley and Matthew Melino, The Implications of U.S. Policy Stagnation toward the Arctic Region, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), May 2019, 5 pp.

130 See, for example, Kenneth R. Rosen, “A Battle for the Arctic Is Underway. And the U.S. Is Already Behind,” Politico, December 17 (updated December 18), 2022; Mir Sadat, “The US Is Unprepared to Face the Challenge in the Arctic. Here’s What It Should Do,” Atlantic Council, January 31, 2022; Tyler Olson, “Biden Admin Faces Lack of Icebreakers, Increasing Russian and Chinese Threats in Arctic,” Fox News, May 9, 2021; Rockford Weitz, “Competition Heats Up in the Melting Arctic, and the US Isn’t Prepared to Counter Russia,” The Conversation, April 19 (updated June 11), 2021; John Rossomando, “Will Joe Biden Lose the Arctic to Russia or China?” National Interest, April 18, 2021.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 32

Ambassador’s role within the department, and greater authority to coordinate with all the relevant bureaus across the department.¹³¹

Russia in the Arctic

Overview¹³²

In considering Russia’s role in the Arctic’s geopolitical environment, points that can be noted include but are not limited to the following:

• Geographically, Russia is the most prominent of the eight Arctic states. According to one assessment, Russia “has at least half of the Arctic in terms of area, coastline, population and probably mineral wealth.”¹³³ About 20% of Russia’s land mass is north of the Arctic Circle,¹³⁴ and Russia has numerous cities and towns there. As of 2019-2020, 80% of Russia’s natural gas and 17% per cent of its oil production took place in its Arctic.¹³⁵

• Russia has identified the Arctic as a high-priority region critical to the country’s prosperity and security. Starting in 2008, the Russian government has adopted a series of strategy documents outlining plans to bolster the country’s Arctic military capabilities, strengthen territorial sovereignty, and develop the region’s resources and infrastructure. Russia is keen to capitalize on natural resource development in the region, both onshore and offshore.

• Over the least 10 to 15 years, Russia has invested in the construction of Arctic ports and search-and-rescue facilities, some of which are referred to as dual-use (civilian-military) facilities. Russia also has reactivated and modernized Arctic military bases that fell into disuse following the end of the Cold War, assigned upgraded forces to those bases, and increased military exercises and training operations in the Arctic.

• Russia uses its coastal Arctic waters as a maritime highway for supporting its Arctic communities. As noted later in this report (see “Commercial Sea Transportation”), the NSR that runs along Russia’s Arctic coast accounts for the vast majority of large cargo ship transits in the Arctic. Russia is promoting the

131 Government Accountability Office, Arctic Region: Factors That Facilitate and Hinder the Advancement of U.S. Priorities, GAO-23-106002, September 2023, highlights page.

132 For an additional overview discussion, see Michael Paul and Göran Swistek, Russia in the Arctic: Development Plans, Military Potential, and Conflict Prevention, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP) (German Institute for International and Security Affairs), SWP Research Paper 3, February 2022, 42 pp.

133 “The Arctic: Special Report,” The Economist, June 16, 2012, p. 11. The Arctic Council states that “Russia stretches over 53 percent of the Arctic Ocean coastline. Approximately two and a half million of Russia’s inhabitants live in Arctic territory, accounting for nearly half of the population living in the Arctic worldwide.” (“The Russian Federation,” Arctic Council, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://arctic-council.org/en/about/states/russian-federation/.)

134 Testimony of Admiral Charles W. Ray, Coast Guard Vice Commandant, on “Expanding Opportunities, Challenges, and Threats in the Arctic: a Focus on the U.S. Coast Guard Arctic Strategic Outlook” before the Senate Commerce, Science, & Transportation Security Subcommittee, December 12, 2019, p. 3.

135 Ian Anthony, Ekaterina Klimenko, and Fei Su, A Strategic Triangle in the Arctic? Implications of China–Russia– United States Power Dynamics for Regional Security, SIPRI Insights on Peace and Security, no. 2021/3, March 2021, p. 3, which cites the following as its source [brackets as in the citation]: “President of Russia, [The strategy for the development of the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation and national security until 2035], 26 Oct. 2020 (in Russian); and Novyye Izvestiya, [Russia invests 86 billion USD into the Arctic], 28 Mar. 2019 (in Russian).”

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 33

NSR for use by others seeking to transport goods between Europe and Asia.¹³⁶ In July 2024 it was reported that Russia is seeking China’s help in developing the NSR.¹³⁷

• In light of the above points, of all the Arctic states, Russia might have the most at stake in the Arctic in absolute terms.¹³⁸

Cooperation with Russia

Prior to Russia’s war in Ukraine, the A7 states cooperated with Russia on a range of issues in the Arctic. One example is cooperation on Arctic SAR under the May 2011 Arctic Council agreement on Arctic SAR that is discussed later in this report. The A7 states also cooperated with Russia through the Arctic Coast Guard Forum (ACGF), an organization intended to “foster safe, secure, and environmentally responsible maritime activity in the Arctic.”¹³⁹ The United States and Russia in 2018 cooperated in creating a scheme for managing two-way shipping traffic through the Bering Strait and Bering Sea,¹⁴⁰ and in February 2021, the U.S. Coast Guard and Russia’s Marine Rescue Service signed an agreement updating a 1989 bilateral joint contingency plan for responding to transboundary maritime pollution incidents.¹⁴¹ Prior to Russia’s war in Ukraine, some observers saw possibilities for further cooperation by the A7 states with Russia in the Arctic.¹⁴² Since the start of Russia’s war in Ukraine, those possibilities have narrowed

136 See also Gonzalo Vázquez, “2022 Russian Maritime Doctrine: Implications for NATO & the Future of Great Power Competition in the Arctic,” Arctic Institute, April 11, 2023; Atle Staalesen, “Assertive Moscow outlines push into central Arctic Ocean,” Barents Observer, August 17, 2022; Malte Humpert, “Control Over Arctic Ocean Top Priority Of New Russian Naval Doctrine,” High North News, August 4, 2022.

137 Laura Zhou, “Russia Seeking China’s Help to Develop Arctic Shipping Route – Is It Worth It for Beijing?” South China Morning Post, July 2, 2024.

138 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R46761, Russia: Foreign Policy and U.S. Relations, by Andrew S. Bowen and Cory Welt. See also Heather A. Conley et al., Russia’s Climate Gamble, The Pursuit and Contradiction of Its Arctic Ambitions, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), September 2021, 58 pp.

139 The ACGF states at its website (https://www.arcticcoastguardforum.com/about-acgf) that it “is an independent, informal, operationally-driven organization, not bound by treaty, to foster safe, secure, and environmentally responsible maritime activity in the Arctic. All Arctic countries, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Island, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States are members of the forum. Chairmanship duties of the ACGF rotate every two years in concert with the Chairmanship of the Arctic Council.” The ACGF holds two meetings each year. The work of the ACGF is headed by the ACGF chair and supported by the Secretariat and Working Groups. The Secretariat is responsible for implementing strategic direction and the smooth operation of the ACGF and its Working Groups. Working Groups are subordinate to the Secretariat. The Secretariat and Working Groups are organized at the direction of the Principals and reflect issues relevant to member countries of the Arctic.

140 See, for example, U.S. Coast Guard, “U.S., Russia Propose Bering Strait Ship Traffic Routing Measures,” January 25, 2018; Amy Midgett, “U.S., Russia Jointly Propose Bering Strait Routing Measures,” Coast Guard Maritime Commons, January 25, 2018; Amy Midgett, “IMO Approves U.S.-Russian Federation Proposal for Bering Strait Routing Measures,” Coast Guard Maritime Commons, May 25, 2018; Yereth Rosen, “With Marine Traffic Growing, International Shipping Agency Approves US-Russia Plan for Bering Strait Shipping Lanes,” ArcticToday, May 26, 2018; Associated Press, “Maritime Organization Approves Two-Way Shipping Routes in Bering Strait,” CBC, May 27, 2018; “U.S., Russia Propose Bering Strait Traffic Routing,” Maritime Executive, May 27, 2018; Margaret Kriz Hobson, “Amid Ice Melt, New Shipping Lanes Are Drawn Up off Alaska,” E&E News (Scientific American), May 29, 2018.

141 See Melody Schreiber, “U.S. and Russia Sign New Maritime Pollution Agreement, Conduct Joint Bering Sea Patrol,” ArcticToday, February 10, 2021.

142 See, for example, Nick Lokker, “Polar Bear in the Room: America Must Talk to Russia About the Arctic,” National Interest, November 21, 2021; Mark Piesing, “International Competition is Heating Up in the Arctic. These Norwegian Islands Show How It Can Be Managed.,” Barron’s, August 26, 2021; Kari Roberts, “How Canada Should Deal with Russia in the Arctic,” iPolitics, August 23, 2021; Autumn Gonzales, “Towards a US-Russia Partnership in the Arctic,” Modern Diplomacy, August 11, 2021; Melody Schreiber and Krestia DeGeorge, “What the Biden-Putin Summit (continued...)

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 34

considerably, but U.S.-Russian in marine safety-related cooperation in the Bering Strait reportedly continued,¹⁴³ and some observers see some limited possibilities for additional cooperation.¹⁴⁴

Tension and Competition

Prior to Russia’s war in Ukraine, and as discussed later in this report, the increase in Russian military presence and operations in the Arctic had prompted growing concerns among the A7 states that the Arctic might become a region of military tension and competition, as well as concerns about whether the A7 states are adequately prepared militarily to defend their interests in the region. As discussed later in this report in the section on military operations, the A7 states have responded to Russia’s increased military presence and operations in the Arctic by taking steps to increase their own Arctic military capabilities. Russian military exercises in the Arctic are being monitored by the A7 states, and, similar to what happened during the Cold War, Russian military aircraft that periodically fly toward the airspace (including Arctic airspace) of some of the A7 states are being intercepted by military aircraft from those states.

In February 2020, a disagreement arose between Norway and Russia regarding Russia’s access to the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard under the terms of the Svalbard Treaty of 1920. In June 2022, Russian legislators reportedly questioned Norway’s sovereignty over Svalbard.¹⁴⁵

Russia’s government considers certain parts of the NSR to be internal Russian waters and has asserted a right to regulate commercial shipping passing through these waters—a position that creates a source of tension with the U.S. government, which considers those waters to be international waters.¹⁴⁶ The U.S.-Russian dispute over this issue could have implications not only

Means—and Doesn’t Mean—for Arctic Cooperation,” ArcticToday, June 18, 2021; Hilde-Gunn Bye, “Plenty of Ground for Cooperation in the Arctic, Putin Says,” High North News, June 17 (updated June 18), 2021; Malgorzata (Gosia) Smieszek, “US-Russia Cooperation on an Arctic Methane Agreement Could Improve Relations—and Slow Climate Change,” ArcticToday, June 14, 2021; Paul Arthur Berkman, “Cooperation in the Arctic Offers a Model for US-Russia Cooperation Elsewhere,” ArcticToday, June 11, 2021; Thomas Rotnem, “The Arctic Council Power Flex that Could Prove Prosperous—for America,” National Interest, May 31, 2021; Tom Balmforth and Humeyra Pamuk, “Russia, U.S. Tout Cooperation Ahead of Arctic Council Meeting,” Reuters, May 18, 2021.

143 Yereth Rosen, “Despite Ukraine war, US and Russia Continue Emergency Cooperation in the Bering Strait,” ArcticToday, April 11, 2022.

144 See Stefanie Orphal, “Arctic Cooperation at a Standstill Because of Russia’s War in Ukraine: Report,” Phys.org, March 15, 2024; Serafima Andreeva, Klaus Dodds, Nadja Douglas, Christoph Humrich, and Thomas Nawrath, New Arctic Realities: Between Conflicting Interests and Avenues for Cooperation, Centre for East European and International Studies (ZOis), March 2024, 21 pp.; Jennifer Spence, Hannah Chenok, Elana Wilson Rowe, Malgorzata Smieszek-Rice, Margaret Williams, and Fran Ulmer, Arctic Climate Science: A Way Forward for Cooperation through the Arctic Council and Beyond, Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and UiT The Arctic University of Norway, March 2024, 6 pp.; Yereth Rosen, “Despite Russia’s Post-Invasion Isolation, Some Narrow Openings for Arctic Cooperation Remain,” Alaska Beacon, April 11, 2023.

145 Atle Staalesen, “Top Russian Legislators Question Norwegian Sovereignty over Svalbard,” Barents Observer, June 29, 2022; Reuters, “Russia Threatens Retaliation against Norway over Access to Arctic Islands,” Reuters, June 29, 2022. See also Reuters, “Russia’s Speaker Asks Parliament to Look at Scrapping Norway Sea Treaty,” Reuters, July 2, 2022; Andreas Østhagen, Otto Svendsen, and Max Bergmann, Arctic Geopolitics: The Svalbard Archipelago, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), September 2023 (posted online September 14, 2023), 13 pp.

146 See, for example, Katarzyna Zysk and Rebecca Pincus, “Getting Sporty in Russia’s Arctic,” War on the Rocks, October 24, 2023; Cornell Overfield, “Russia’s Arctic Claims Are on Thin Ice, Russia Is Making a Freedom of Navigation Operation More Likely,” Foreign Policy, December 20, 2022; Thomas Nilsen, “Russian Parliament Passes Law Limiting Freedom of Navigation along Northern Sea Route,” Barents Observer, December 1, 2022; Jan Jakub Solski, “In the Fog of War: Russia Raises Stakes on the Russian Arctic Straits,” Arctic Institute, September 22, 2022; Cornell Overfield, “Wrangling Warships: Russia’s Proposed Law on Northern Sea Route Navigation,” Lawfare, October 17, 2022; Peter B. Danilov, “Russia has Advanced Unlawful Maritime Claims in the Arctic, Says Antony (continued...)

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 35

for U.S.-Russian relations and the Arctic, but for other countries and other parts of the world as well, since international law is universal in its application, and a successful challenge to international waters in one part of the world can serve as a precedent for challenging it in other parts of the world.¹⁴⁷

A March 19, 2024, press report quoted the Chairman of the Russian Parliament Committee for the Development of the Far East and Arctic as stating, “The issue of the possible denunciation [by Russia] of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Arctic is under study,” and “We will not continue to be part of it to our detriment.” The article also stated: “The Kremlin-controlled Izvestia news website article also clarifies that the statements about the withdrawal are connected to Russia’s concern about NATO ships and aviation “conducting intelligence” in, what the Izvestia calls, the “Russian sector of the Arctic, but formally they do not cross the 12-mile zone.”¹⁴⁸

NATO and European Union in the Arctic

NATO

As mentioned earlier, the A7 states are all members of NATO, and the expansion of NATO to include Finland and Sweden following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine has increased the Arctic as an area of focus for NATO.

Blinken,” High North News, May 19, 2021; Nikolaj Skydsgaard and Humeyra Pamuk, “Blinken Says Russia Has Advanced Unlawful Maritime Claims in the Arctic,” Reuters, May 18, 2021.

147 In that context, it can be noted that the U.S. government views the part of the Northwest Passage that runs through the Canadian archipelago as an international strait, while Canada’s government considers it internal Canadian waters. In 1985, the use of the waterway by a U.S. polar icebreaker led to a diplomatic dispute between the United States and Canada. In January 1988, the two countries signed an agreement under which, observers say, the two sides essentially agreed to disagree on the issue. The agreement—formally called Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America on Arctic Cooperation—states in part that “the Government of the United States pledges that all navigation by U.S. icebreakers within waters claimed by Canada to be internal will be undertaken with the consent of the Government of Canada,” and that “nothing in this agreement of cooperative endeavour between Arctic neighbours and friends nor any practice thereunder affects the respective positions of the Governments of the United States and of Canada on the Law of the Sea in this or other maritime areas or their respective positions regarding third parties.” The text of the agreement as posted by the Canadian government is available at https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=101701. An August 26, 2021, press report states that

A U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker embarked Wednesday [August 25, 2021] on a long Arctic mission that includes a rare transit of the Northwest Passage, conducting scientific research and a joint exercise with Canada in Arctic waters. The cutter Healy, one of two operational U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers, departed Wednesday from Seward, Alaska, for the three-week journey to Nuuk, Greenland.... Healy last transited the passage in 2005. In 2017, the U.S. cutter Maple [(WLB-207), a seagoing buoy tender] navigated the Northwest Passage from west to east together with the Canadian icebreaker Terry Fox to conduct research in a joint exercise with Canada.... U.S. vessels may travel through the passage if they are conducting research, according to a 1988 agreement with Canada.... The invocation of the 1988 agreement on Arctic cooperation means Canadian-U.S. relations are “returning back to normality,” Rob Huebert, assistant professor at the University of Calgary, told ArcticToday.... The Coast Guard first approached Canada to request consent in summer 2020, [Jason Kung, a spokesperson for Global Affairs Canada] said, and Canadian and U.S. agencies have worked together closely on the trip. (Melody Schreiber, “US Icebreaker Departs on a Voyage that Will Transit the Northwest Passage,” ArcticToday, August 26, 2021.)

148 Elizaveta Vereykina, “Russia Is Considering Withdrawal from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Arctic,” High North News, March 19, 2024.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 36

During the Cold War (i.e., before Sweden and Finland joined NATO), U.S. and allied political and military officials viewed NATO member Norway and its adjacent sea areas as the northern flank of NATO’s defensive line against potential aggression by the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact alliance. With the end of the Cold War, NATO planning efforts shifted away from defending against potential aggression by Russia against NATO countries, including NATO countries in the Arctic. With the emergence of great power competition, NATO began to once again focus more on the question of how to deter potential Russian aggression against NATO countries, including NATO countries in in the Arctic. Russia’s war in Ukraine has strengthened NATO’s focus on this question.¹⁴⁹

European Union

Three of the eight Arctic states—Denmark, Finland, and Sweden—are members of the European Union (EU), and two other Arctic states—Iceland and Norway—have close ties to the EU as members of the European Economic Area. The EU is showing increased interest in the Arctic.¹⁵⁰ The European Parliament—the EU’s only directly elected institution—supports an active EU role in the Arctic. In 2016, the European Commission (the EU’s executive) and the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy issued a joint communication (i.e., policy paper) on the EU’s Arctic strategy.¹⁵¹ In 2017, the EU appointed its first Ambassador-at-Large for the Arctic, and in October 2019, the EU held its first-ever Arctic Forum, a high-level conference in northern Sweden focused on promoting EU efforts in the Arctic. The EU is also a major financial contributor to Arctic research.

China in the Arctic

China’s Activities in the Arctic

China’s diplomatic, economic, and scientific activities in the Arctic are a matter of focus and concern for U.S., Canadian, and Nordic policymakers. Observers have expressed curiosity or concern about China’s exact mix of motivations for its activities in the Arctic, and about what China’s ultimate goals for the Arctic might be.¹⁵² As noted earlier, Russia’s diplomatic isolation

149 For an additional short overview, see Elley Donnelly, “NATO in the Arctic: 75 years of Security, Cooperation, and Adaptation,” Wilson Center, April 3, 2024.

150 See, for example, Andreas Raspotnika and Adam Stępień, “The European Union’s Polar Ambitions: Regional Geo- policies Yet Limited Geo-strategic Vision,” Journal of European Integration, vol. 45, no. 8, 2023 (published online December 6, 2023): 1181–1197; Emilie Canova, “The European Union and its Member States in the Arctic: Official Complementarity but Underlying Rivalry?” Arctic Institute, August 8, 2023; Andreas Raspotnik and Adam Stępień, “The Arctic Institute’s 2023 Series on the European Union’s Arctic Policy—From a Stakeholder Perspective,” Arctic Institute, August 1, 2023; Lena Debanck, “The EU as an Actor in the Arctic,” Arctic Institute, April 25, 2023; Gabriella Gricius and Andreas Raspotnik, “The European Union’s ‘Never Again’ Arctic Narrative,” Journal of Contemporary European Studies, published online March 20, 2023; Luke Laframboise, “Brussels Looks North: The European Union’s Latest Arctic Policy and the Potential for ‘Green’ Colonialism,” Arctic Institute, September 20, 2022; Iris Thatcher, “The EU and the Future of Arctic Cooperation in the Northern Dimension,” Polar Points (Wilson Center Polar Institute), September 7, 2022.

151 European Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council, An Integrated European Union Policy for the Arctic, April 27, 2016, p. 2.

152 See, for example, Nicholas Tachias, “Coldest War: ‘Near-Arctic’ China Joining Power Competition in North,” Federal Times, July 5, 2024; Mathieu Landriault, “China’s Surging Presence Reshapes a Thawing Arctic,” Asia Times, June 7, 2024; Kartik Bommakanti, China’s ‘Three Warfares’ Strategy in Action: Implications for the Sino-India Boundary, the Arctic, and Antarctica, Observer Research Foundation (ORF), February 2024 (posted online February 7, (continued...)

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 37

from the A7 states in the Arctic has led to increased Russian cooperation with China in the Arctic—a development that could strengthen China’s presence and activities in the region and affect views among observers in the A7 states and elsewhere regarding China’s motivations and goals for its Arctic activities and China’s ability to work with the A7 states on matters relating to the Arctic.

In 2013, China was one of six non-Arctic states that were approved for observer status by the Arctic Council.¹⁵³ As mentioned earlier, prior to Russia’s war in Ukraine, China had raised questions as to whether the Arctic Council as currently constituted and the current broader legal framework for the Arctic should continue to be the principal means for addressing issues relating to the Arctic, and had begun to use other approaches for influencing Arctic governance.

In January 2018, China released a white paper on China’s Arctic policy that refers to China as a “near-Arctic state.”¹⁵⁴ (China’s northernmost territory, northeast of Mongolia, is at about the same

2024), 35 pp.; Matti Puranen and Sanna Kopra, “China’s Arctic Strategy—a Comprehensive Approach in Times of Great Power Rivalry,” Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies, Vol. 6, Issue 1, 2023 (published online December 26, 2023): 239-253; Erdem Lamazhapov, Iselin Stensdal, and Gørild Heggelund, “China’s Polar Silk Road: Long Game or Failed Strategy?” Arctic Institute, November 14, 2023; Maria Milagros, “China’s Game in the Arctic: A Tale of Deception?” Modern Diplomacy, May 25, 2023; Matthew P. Funaiole, Brian Hart, Joseph S. Bermudez Jr., and Aidan Powers-Riggs, “Frozen Frontiers, China’s Great Power Ambitions in the Polar Regions,” Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), April 18, 2023; P. Whitney Lackenbauer, Adam Lajeunesse, and Ryan Dean, “Why China Is Not a Peer Competitor in the Arctic,” Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs, published October 3, 2022; Daniel Kochis, “U.S. Policymakers Should Remain Wary of Chinese Ambitions in the Arctic,” Heritage Foundation, July 28, 2022; Liisa Kauppila and Sanna Kopra, “China’s Rise and the Arctic Region up to 2049–Three Scenarios for Regional Futures in an Era of Climate Change and Power Transition,” Polar Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, 2022, published online April 7, 2022; Stephanie Pezard et al., China’s Strategy and Activities in the Arctic, Implications for North American and Transatlantic Security, RAND, 2022, 165 pp.; Rebecca Wolfson, Cornell Overfield, Mark Rosen, Benjamin DeThomas, and Joshua Tallis, Arctic Prospecting: Measuring China’s Arctic Economic Footprint, Center for naval Analyses (CNA), January 2022, 124 pp.; Heidi Holz, Andrew Taffer, Anthony Miller, and Benjamin DeThomas, Exploring the Relationship between China’s Investment in the Arctic and Its National Strategy, Center for Naval Analyses (CNA), January 2022, 70 pp.; Joshua Tallis, Mark Rosen, and Cornell Overfield, Arctic Economic Security: Recommendations for Safeguarding Arctic Nations against China’s Economic Statecraft, Center for Naval Analyses (CNA), January 2022, 36 pp.; Cornell Overfield, Anthony Miller, Eleanore Douglas, Kasey Stricklin, and Mary Ellen Connell, Foreign Direct Investment Screening in the Arctic, Center for Naval Analyses (CNA), January 2022, 92 pp.

153 The other five were India, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. For a list of the observer states and when they were approved for observer status, see Arctic Council, “List of Arctic Council Observers,” accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.arctic-council.org/about/observers/.

154 “Full Text: China’s Arctic Policy,” Xinhua, January 26, 2018. The white paper states that “China is an important stakeholder in Arctic affairs. Geographically, China is a ‘Near-Arctic State’, one of the continental States that are closest to the Arctic Circle. The natural conditions of the Arctic and their changes have a direct impact on China’s climate system and ecological environment, and, in turn, on its economic interests in agriculture, forestry, fishery, marine industry and other sectors. China is also closely involved in the trans-regional and global issues in the Arctic, especially in such areas as climate change, environment, scientific research, utilization of shipping routes, resource exploration and exploitation, security, and global governance. These issues are vital to the existence and development of all countries and humanity, and directly affect the interests of non-Arctic States including China.” Somewhat similarly, France’s June 2016 national roadmap for the Arctic refers to France as a “polar nation.” (Republique Francaise, Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres et du Developpement International, The Great Challenge of the Arctic, National Roadmap for the Arctic, June 2016, 60 pp.) The document states on page 9 that “France has established itself over the last three centuries as a polar nation, with a strong tradition of expeditions and exploration, and permanent research bases at the poles,” and on page 17 that “[b]uilding on its long-standing tradition of exploration and expeditions in high latitudes, France has carved out its place as a polar nation over the last three centuries. France has permanent scientific bases in the Arctic and in Antarctica.” It can also be noted that the northernmost part of mainland France, next to Belgium and across the Strait of Dover from England, is almost as far north as the more southerly parts of the Aleutian Islands. Also somewhat similarly, a November 2018 UK parliamentary report refers to the UK as a “near-Arctic neighbour.” The report states the following: “While the UK is not an Arctic state, it is a near-Arctic neighbour. The UK’s weather (continued...)

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 38

latitude as the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, which, as noted earlier, the United States includes in its definition of the Arctic for purposes of U.S. law.) The white paper refers to trans-Arctic shipping routes as the Polar Silk Road, and identifies these routes as a major transportation corridor for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China’s major geopolitical initiative, first announced by China in 2013, to knit Eurasia and other regions together in a China-anchored or China-led infrastructure and economic network.¹⁵⁵ The polar regions (both the Arctic and Antarctic) are included in China’s 14^th Five-Year Plan, covering the period 2021-2025.¹⁵⁶

China has a Ukrainian-built polar-capable icebreaker, Xue Long (Snow Dragon), that has made several transits of Arctic waters conducting what China has said were research expeditions. A second polar-capable icebreaker (the first that China has built domestically), named Xue Long 2, entered service in 2019, and a third polar-capable icebreaker, Jidi—a ship with a reported length of 292 feet and a displacement of 5,600 tons—reportedly was completed in December 2023.¹⁵⁷

China has expanded its diplomatic activities with the Nordic countries, and increased the size of its diplomatic presence in some of them. China has also engaged in economic discussions with Iceland and with Greenland, a self-governing part of the Kingdom of Denmark.¹⁵⁸ China’s engagement with Greenland appears related in significant part to Greenland’s deposits of rare

system is profoundly affected by changes in the Arctic’s climate and sea currents. The UK has been an Observer to the Arctic Council since 1998.” (United Kingdom, House of Commons, Environmental Audit Committee, The Changing Arctic, Twelfth Report of Session 2017-19, November 29, 2018, p. 3. [Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report, Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed November 6, 2018]. See also pp. 6, 29, and 32.) See also Eva Dou, “A New Cold War? China Declares Itself a ‘Near-Arctic State,’ Wall Street Journal, January 26, 2018; Grant Newsham, “China As A ‘Near Arctic State’—Chutzpah Overcoming Geography,” Asia Times, January 30, 2018.

155 See, for example, Maria Shagina and Elizabeth Buchanan, “China Enters the Arctic Digitization Race,” National Interest, January 17, 2021; Nima Khorrami, “Data Hunting in Subzero Temperatures: The Arctic as a New Frontier in Beijing’s Push for Digital Connectivity,” Arctic Institute, August 4, 2020; Marc Lanteigne, “The Twists and Turns of the Polar Silk Road,” Over the Circle, March 15, 2020; Zhang Chun, “China’s ‘Arctic Silk Road,’” Maritime Executive, January 10, 2020; Sabena Siddiqui, “Arctic Ambition: Beijing Eyes the Polar Silk Road,” Asia Times, October 25, 2018. See also Atle Staalesen, “Chinese Money for Northern Sea Route,” Barents Observer, June 12, 2018; Lin Boqiang, “China Can Support Arctic Development as Part of B&R,” Global Times, August 9, 2018. The BRI’s other two main corridors, which were announced at the outset of the BRI, are a land corridor that runs east to west across the middle of Eurasia—the “belt” in BRI—and a sea corridor called the Maritime Silk Road that passes through the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean to the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea—the “road” in BRI. For more on the BRI, also known as the One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative, see CRS In Focus IF11735, China’s “One Belt, One Road” Initiative: Economic Issues, by Karen M. Sutter, Andres B. Schwarzenberg, and Michael D. Sutherland.

156 See, for example, Trym Eiterjord, “What the 14th Five-Year Plan says about China's Arctic Interests,” Arctic Institute, November 23, 2023; Marc Lanteigne, “The Polar Policies in China’s New Five-Year Plan,” Diplomat, March 12, 2021.

157 See, for example, Atle Staalesen, “China Commissions New Icebreaker,” Barents Observer, July 10, 2024; Cyril Ip, “China’s Expanding Next-Generation Icebreaker Fleet Welcomes Jidi, Its Newest Member,” South China Morning Post, June 25, 2024; Global Times, “China’s New-Generation Ice-Breaking Research Vessel Delivered, Sets to Begin Scientific Operations This Year,” Global Times, June 24, 2024; “China's Domestically Built Icebreaker Makes Debut,” Global Times, December 29, 2023. Prior to the reported completion of this ship, the U.S. Coast Guard had counted a total of four operational PRC polar icebreakers; see Table B-1 in CRS Report RL34391, Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (Polar Icebreaker) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.

158 See, for example, Yang Jiang, Chinese Investments in Greenland, Origins, Progress and Actors, Dansk Institut for Internationale Studier (DIIS), 2021, 34 pp. (posted online November 17, 2021); Marc Lanteigne, “Greenland’s Widening World,” Over the Circle, March 28, 2020; Marco Volpe, “The Tortuous Path of China’s Win-Win Strategy in Greenland,” Arctic Institute, March 24, 2020; Marc Lanteigne, “Stumbling Block: China-Iceland Oil Exploration Reaches an Impasse,” Over the Circle, January 24, 2018. “Greenland Plans Office in Beijing to Boost Trade Ties with China,” Reuters, July 18, 2018.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 39

earth elements. Like several other nations, China has established a research station in Norway’s Svalbard archipelago. China maintains a second research station in Iceland.

China appears interested in using the NSR to shorten commercial shipping times between Europe and China¹⁵⁹ and perhaps also to reduce China’s dependence on southern sea routes (including those going to the Persian Gulf) that pass through the Strait of Malacca—a maritime choke point that China appears to regard as vulnerable to being closed off by other parties (such as the United States) in time of crisis or conflict.¹⁶⁰ In July 2024, it was reported that a radio station in China has begun broadcasting sea ice analyses and forecasts and weather information for the NSR.¹⁶¹

In addition to using the NSR, China reportedly reached an agreement with Russia on July 4, 2017, to create an “Ice Silk Road.”¹⁶²

China has made significant investments in Russia’s Arctic oil and gas industry, particularly the Yamal natural gas megaproject located on Russia’s Yamal Peninsula in the Arctic.¹⁶³ In February 2023, it was reported that a Russian firm had signed an agreement with a PRC firm for the development of a titanium mining project in the Russian Arctic.¹⁶⁴ China’s government reportedly is also interested in mining opportunities in the Canadian Arctic, and as mentioned earlier, in Greenland.¹⁶⁵ China’s leaders may also be interested in Arctic fishing grounds.

The high-altitude surveillance balloon from China that flew over parts of the United States and Canada in early 2023 reportedly entered U.S. airspace on January 28, 2023, north of the Aleutian Islands (i.e., in the U.S. Arctic as defined under U.S. law).¹⁶⁶ A March 1, 2023, press report stated that “months before a Chinese spy balloon drifted across Alaska and Canada, the Canadian military discovered and retrieved Chinese spy buoys in the Arctic, a region of long interest to Beijing. The Chinese buoys were monitoring U.S. submarines and the melting of ice sheets.”¹⁶⁷ A July 2023 press report stated that “China has completed the field testing and evaluation of an

159 See, for example, Malte Humpert, “China Pushes Northern Sea Route Transit Cargo to New Record,” High North News, December 18, 2023; Malte Humpert, “Chinese Container Ship Completes First Round Trip Voyage Across Arctic,” High North News, October 9, 2023; Eduardo Baptista, “China ‘More Than Other States’ Looks to Future Sea Route Through Resource-Rich Arctic, Study Says,” South China Morning Post, September 22, 2020.

160 See, for example, Jonathan Hall, “Arctic Enterprise: The China Dream Goes North,” Journal of Political Risk, September 2019. See also Andrew Latham, “China Looks to the Arctic to Avoid Another Suez Slowdown,” National Interest, April 2, 2021.

161 Albee Zhang and Ryan Woo, additional reporting by Aizhu Chen and Emily Chow, “China Starts Regular Sea Ice Forecasts for Northeast Passage off Russian Coast,” Reuters, July 1, 2024.

162 Xinhua, “China, Russia agree to jointly build ‘Ice Silk Road,’” Xinhuanet, July 4, 2017.

163 See, for example, Malte Humpert (High North News), “China Acquires 20 Percent Stake in Novatek’s Arctic LNG 2 Project,” ArcticToday, April 30, 2019; Ernesto Gallo and Giovanni Biava, “A New Energy Frontier Called ‘Polar Silk Road,’” China Daily, April 12, 2019.

164 Malte Humpert, “Russian Mining Company Partners With China to Develop Massive Titanium Deposit in Arctic,” High North News, February 6, 2023; “China to Assist Russia with Titanium Mining in the Arctic,” Jane’s, February 1, 2023.

165 See, for example, Regin Winther Poulsen, “How Greenland’s Mineral Wealth Made It a Geopolitical Battleground,” Foreign Policy, December 18, 2022.

166 Ellen Nakashima, Shane Harris, and Jason Samenow, “U.S. Tracked China Spy Balloon from Launch on Hainan Island along Unusual Path,” Washington Post, February 14, 2023. See also Liam Denning, “China’s ‘Climate’ Balloon Risks Arctic Peace,” Bloomberg, February 6, 2023. For further discussion of the balloon, see CRS Insight IN12118, Monitoring the Sovereign Skies, by Bart Elias.

167 Xiaoshan Xue, “Reports: Canada Found, Retrieved Chinese Spy Buoys in Arctic,” Voice of America, March 1, 2023.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 40

underwater listening device that will be deployed on a large scale in the Arctic Ocean, according to the Polar Research Institute of China.”¹⁶⁸

China’s activities in the Arctic may additionally reflect a view among China’s leaders that China, like other major world powers, should be active in the polar regions for conducting research and other purposes. (Along with its growing activities in the Arctic, China has increased the number of research stations it maintains in the Antarctic.)¹⁶⁹

Arctic States’ Response

China’s activities in the Arctic could pose challenges to the A7 states in terms of defending their own interests in the Arctic. Some observers have also cited potential opportunities for cooperation in the Arctic between China and the A7 states.¹⁷⁰ A general question for U.S. policymakers is how to integrate China’s activities in the Arctic into overall U.S.-China relations, and whether and how, in U.S. policymaking, to link China’s activities in the Arctic to its activities in other parts of the world.

One specific question could be whether to impose punitive costs on China in the Arctic for unwanted actions that China takes elsewhere. As one potential example, U.S. policymakers could consider moving to suspend China’s observer status on the Arctic Council¹⁷¹ as a punitive cost-

168 Stephen Chen, “China Plans Massive Listening Programme at the North Pole after Declaring Success in Arctic Test of Underwater Device,” South China Morning Post, July 9, 2023.

169 See, for example, Albee Zhang and Ryan Woo, “China Opens Antarctic Station South of Australia, New Zealand,” Reuters, February 7, 2024; William Yang, “China’s New Antarctic Research Station Renews Concerns About Potential Security Threats,” VOA, February 16, 2024; Claire Young, “China Has a Fifth Station in Antarctica,” Interpreter, February 21, 2024. For additional discussion, see CRS Report R46708, Antarctica: Overview of Geopolitical and Environmental Issues, by Pervaze A. Sheikh, Bruce Vaughn, and Kezee Procita. See also Alexander B. Gray, “China’s Next Geopolitical Goal: Dominate Antarctica,” National Interest, March 20, 2021.

170 See, for example, Yuanyuan Ren, “U.S.-China Arctic Cooperation in a New Era of Great Power Competition: Opportunities and Challenges,” Yearbook of Polar Law Online, published online February 23, 2023; Nonh Hong, China and the United States in the Arctic: Exploring the Divergence and Convergence of Interests, Institute for China- America Studies (ICAS), October 2022, 36 pp.

171 Paragraph 37 of the Arctic Council’s rules of procedure states the following:

Once observer status has been granted, Observers shall be invited to the meetings and other activities of the Arctic Council unless SAOs [Senior Arctic Officials] decide otherwise. Observer status shall continue for such time as consensus exists among Ministers. Any Observer that engages in activities which are at odds with the Council’s [Ottawa] Declaration [of September 19, 1996, establishing the Council] or these Rules of Procedure shall have its status as an Observer suspended.

Paragraph 5 of Annex II of the Arctic Council’s rules of procedure—an annex regarding the accreditation and review of observers—states the following:

Every four years, from the date of being granted Observer status, Observers should state affirmatively their continued interest in Observer status. Not later than 120 days before a Ministerial meeting where Observers will be reviewed, the Chairmanship shall circulate to the Arctic States and Permanent Participants a list of all accredited Observers and up-to-date information on their activities relevant to the work of the Arctic Council. (Arctic Council, Arctic Council Rules of Procedure, p. 9. The document was accessed March 7, 2024, at https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/940.

Paragraph 4.3 of the Arctic Council’s observer manual for subsidiary bodies states in part

Observer status continues for such time as consensus exists among Ministers. Any Observer that engages in activities which are at odds with the Ottawa Declaration or with the Rules of Procedure will have its status as an Observer suspended. (Arctic Council. Observer Manual for Subsidiary Bodies, p. 5. The document was accessed March

(continued...)

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 41

imposing measure for unwanted actions by China in the South China Sea.¹⁷² In a May 6, 2019, speech in Finland, then-Secretary of State Pompeo stated (emphasis added)

The United States is a believer in free markets. We know from experience that free and fair competition, open, by the rule of law, produces the best outcomes.

But all the parties in the marketplace have to play by those same rules. Those who violate those rules should lose their rights to participate in that marketplace. Respect and transparency are the price of admission.

And let’s talk about China for a moment. China has observer status in the Arctic Council, but that status is contingent upon its respect for the sovereign rights of Arctic states. The U.S. wants China to meet that condition and contribute responsibly in the region. But China’s words and actions raise doubts about its intentions.¹⁷³

China’s interest and investments in Greenland are a matter of concern for U.S. policymakers. PRC firms have invested in resource extraction ventures in Greenland, including potential sites for mining rare earth elements. In February 2019, it was reported that the United States in 2018 had urged Denmark to finance the construction of airports that China had offered to build in Greenland. U.S. officials were concerned about this attempt by China to increase its presence and influence in Greenland and the broader Arctic region. The Danish government ultimately financed the construction of the airports.¹⁷⁴

In May 2019, the State Department announced a plan for establishing a permanent diplomatic presence in Greenland,¹⁷⁵ and on June 2020, the State Department formally announced the reopening of the U.S. consulate in Greenland’s capital of Nuuk.¹⁷⁶ In April 2020, the U.S. government announced $12.1 million economic aid package for Greenland that the Trump

7, 2024, at https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/939.)

See also Alyson JK Bailes, “Understanding The Arctic Council: A ‘Sub-Regional’ Perspective,” Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, Vol. 15, Issue 2, 2013: 48; Brianna Wodiske, “Preventing the Melting of the Arctic Council: China as a Permanent Observer and What It Means for the Council and the Environment,” Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 315, Issue 2, 2014 (November 1, 2014): 320; Sebastian Knecht, “New Observers Queuing Up: Why the Arctic Council Should Expand—And Expel,” Arctic Institute, April 20, 2015; Evan Bloom, “Establishment of the Arctic Council,” undated; accessed March 7, 2024, at https://2009-2017.state.gov/ e/oes/ocns/opa/arc/ac/establishmentarcticcouncil/index.htm, which states “The following paper was authored by Evan Bloom in July 1999 when serving as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State. Mr. Bloom is now the Director of the Office of Oceans and Polar Affairs for the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs at the U.S. Department of State.” See also Kevin McGwin, “After 20 years, the Arctic Council Reconsiders the Role of Observers,” ArcticToday, October 24, 2018.

172 For more on China’s actions in the South China Sea and their potential implications for U.S. interests, see CRS Report R42784, U.S.-China Strategic Competition in South and East China Seas: Background and Issues for Congress.

173 U.S. Department of State, “Looking North: Sharpening America’s Arctic Focus, Remarks, Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of State, Rovaniemi, Finland, May 6, 2019.”

174 Drew Hinshaw and Jeremy Page, “How the Pentagon Countered China’s Designs on Greenland; Washington Urged Denmark to Finance Airports that Chinese Aimed to Build on North America’s Doorstep,” Wall Street Journal, February 10, 2019. See also Marc Lanteigne, “Greenland’s Airport Saga: Enter the US?” Over the Circle, September 18, 2018; Marc Lanteigne, “Greenland’s Airports: A Balance between China and Denmark?” Over the Circle, June 15, 2018; Arne Finne (translation by Elisabeth Bergquist), “Intense Airport Debate in Greenland,” High North News, May 30, 2018.

175 U.S. Department of State, “Secretary Pompeo Postpones Travel to Greenland,” Press Statement, Morgan Ortagus, Department Spokesperson, May 9, 2019. See also Krestia DeGeorge, “US State Department Announces Plans for a Diplomatic Presence in Greenland,” ArcticToday, May 9, 2019; Morten Soendergaard Larsen and Robbie Gramer, “Trump Puts Down New Roots in Greenland,” Foreign Policy, November 8, 2019.

176 See, for example, Eavan Cull, “Setting Up Shop in Nuuk,” Foreign Service Journal, May 2021; Lauren Meier and Guy Taylor, “U.S. Reopens Consulate in Greenland Amid Race for Arctic Supremacy,” Washington Times, June 10, 2020.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 42

Administration presented as a U.S. action done in a context of PRC and Russian actions aimed at increasing their presence and influence in Greenland.¹⁷⁷

Some observers argue that a desire to preclude China (or Russia) from increasing its presence and influence in Greenland may have been one of the reasons why President Trump in August 2019 expressed an interest in the idea of buying Greenland from Denmark.¹⁷⁸

Russia-China cooperation in the Arctic (including China’s investment in Russia’s Arctic oil and gas industry) can both reflect and contribute to Russia and China’s strategic partnership. A February 4, 2022, joint statement by Russia and China about their strategic partnership stated that the two countries “agreed to continue consistently intensifying practical cooperation for the sustainable development of the Arctic.”¹⁷⁹

On the other hand, Russian officials reportedly are also concerned that China’s continued growth in wealth and power might eventually lead to China becoming the dominant power in Eurasia, and to Russia being relegated to a subordinate status in Eurasian affairs.¹⁸⁰ Some observers argue that actual levels of Russia-China cooperation in the Arctic are not as great as PRC or Russian announcements about such cooperation might suggest.¹⁸¹

Linkages Between Arctic and South China Sea

Observers have sometimes made a linkage between the Arctic and the South China Sea in connection with international law of the sea or international cooperation and competition.¹⁸² One

177 See U.S. Department of State, Briefing On the Road to Nuuk: Economic Cooperation, Special Briefing, Michael J. Murphy, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Francis R. Fannon, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Energy Resources, Jonathan Moore, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Gretchen Birkle, USAID Deputy Assistant Administrator, May 15, 2020; and U.S. Department of State, Briefing on the Administration’s Arctic Strategy, Special Briefing, Office of the Spokesperson, April 23, 2020.

178 See, for example, Marc Lanteigne and Mingming Shi, “‘No Sale’: How Talk of a US Purchase of Greenland Reflected Arctic Anxieties,” Over the Circle, September 17, 2020; Stuart Lau, “Did China’s Growing Presence in Arctic Prompt Donald Trump’s Offer to Buy Greenland?” South China Morning Post, September 1, 2019; Nadia Schadlow, “Why Greenland Is Really About China,” The Hill, August 28, 2019; Daniel Lippman, “Trump’s Greenland Gambit Finds Allies Inside Government,” Politico, August 24, 2019; Seth Borenstein (Associated Press), “Icy Arctic Becomes Hot Property for Rival Powers,” Navy Times, August 22, 2019; Ragnhild Grønning, “Why Trump Is Looking to Buy Greenland—Even If It’s Not for Sale,” High North News, August 19, 2019. See also Caitlin Hu and Stephen Collinson, “Why Exactly Is the US So Interested in Greenland?” CNN, July 23, 2020. See also Tarisai Ngangura, “Ex- Staffer: Trump Wanted to Trade ‘Dirty’ Puerto Rico for Greenland,” Vanity Fair, August 19, 2020; Jacob Gronholt- Pedersen, “As the Arctic’s Attractions Mount, Greenland is a Security Black Hole,” Reuters, October 20, 2020; Gordon Lubold, “U.S. Holds Talks Over Economic, Security Arrangements With Greenland,” Wall Street Journal, October 28, 2020. See also Peter Baker, “Cosmetics Billionaire Convinced Trump That the U.S. Should Buy Greenland,” New York Times, September 14, 2022.

179 For the text of the joint statement, see, for example, USC US-China Institute, “Russia-China Joint Statement On International Relations, February 4, 2022,” February 4, 2022.

180 See, for example, Paul Goble, “Moscow Needs Beijing in the Arctic but Worries About China’s Expanding Role,” Eurasia Daily Monitor, February 1, 2022.

181 See, for example, Marc Lanteigne, “A China-Russia Arctic Alliance? Not So Fast,” Diplomat, February 21, 2024; Jim Townsend and Andrea Kendall-Taylor, Partners, Competitors, or a Little of Both? Russia and China in the Arctic, Center for a New American Security (CNAS), March 2021, 17 pp.

182 See, for example, Ali Mammadov, “China, the Arctic, and International Law,” Modern Diplomacy, April 22, 2022; Nong Hong, “Weighing the Sources of International Law: The Arctic, Antarctica and the South China Sea,” Institute for China-America Studies (ICAS), December 11, 2020; Robinson Meyer, “The Next ‘South China Sea’ Is Covered in Ice,” Atlantic, May 15, 2019; Justin D. Nankivell, “The Role of History and Law in the South China Sea and Arctic Ocean,” Maritime Awareness Project, August 7, 2017; Sydney J. Freedberg, “Is The Arctic The next South China Sea? (continued...)

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 43

aspect of this linkage relates to whether China’s degree of compliance with international law of the sea in the South China Sea has any implications for understanding potential behavior by China regarding its compliance with international law of the sea (and international law generally) in the Arctic. A second aspect, mentioned above, is whether the United States should consider the option of moving to suspend China’s observer status on the Arctic Council as a punitive cost- imposing measure for unwanted actions by China in the South China Sea. A third aspect concerns the question of whether the United States should become a party to UNCLOS; discussions of that issue sometimes mention both the Arctic and the situation in the South China Sea.¹⁸³

U.S. and Allied Military Forces and Operations¹⁸⁴

Overview

During the Cold War, the Arctic was an arena of military competition between the United States and the Soviet Union, with both countries, for example, operating long-range bombers, tactical combat aircraft, maritime patrol aircraft, nuclear-powered submarines, surface warships, and ground forces in the region. The end of the Cold War and the collapse of most elements of the Russian military establishment following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 greatly reduced this competition, leading to a post-Cold War period of reduced emphasis on the Arctic in U.S. military planning, budgeting, and operations.

Over the past 10 to 15 years, the emergence of great power competition and a significant increase in Russian military presence and operations in the Arctic has introduced renewed elements of military tension and competition into the Arctic. In response, the A7 states are placing an increased emphasis on the Arctic in their military planning, budgeting, and operations. As noted in this report’s section on the Arctic’s geopolitical environment, Russia’s war in Ukraine has increased concerns among the A7 states about the purpose behind Russia’s military modernization in the Arctic. Russian military exercises in the Arctic are being monitored by the A7 states, and, similar to what happened during the Cold War, Russian military aircraft that periodically fly toward the airspace (including Arctic airspace) of some of the A7 states are being intercepted by military aircraft from those states.

Department of Defense (DOD) officials have stated that U.S. military operations in Alaska can play a role in supporting U.S. military operations not only in the Arctic, but in the Indo-Pacific region. In July 2021 remarks at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III stated: “We are an Indo-Pacific nation and we are an Arctic nation. And here in Alaska those two critical regions intersect. This is where we can project power into both regions and where we must be able to defend ourselves from threats coming from both places.”¹⁸⁵ Parts of

Not Likely,” Breaking Defense, August 4, 2017; Caroline Houck, “The Arctic Could Be the Next South China Sea, Says Coast guard Commandant,” Defense One, August 1, 2017; Daniel Thomassen, “Lessons from the Arctic for the South China Sea,” Center for International Maritime Security, April 4, 2017. For alternate perspectives, see Calvin Heng, “Perils of the Familiar Past: Explaining the United States’ South China Sea Misanalogy,” Arctic Institute, January 30, 2024; Elizabeth Buchanan and Bec Strating, “Why the Arctic Is Not the ‘Next’ South China Sea,” War on the Rocks, November 5, 2020.

183 For further discussion of this situation, see CRS Report R42784, U.S.-China Strategic Competition in South and East China Seas: Background and Issues for Congress.

184 This section was prepared by Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.

185 Department of Defense, “Transcript, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III Press Conference at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska,” July 24, 2021. Later in his remarks, Austin stated that Alaska (continued...)

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 44

Alaska (particularly the panhandle, the southern part of mainland Alaska, and the Aleutian Islands) are situated on or near great circle routes (i.e., the shortest possible routes) linking the U.S. West Coast to locations in the Western Pacific that are close to China.

Russia’s Arctic Military Modernization

As noted earlier, Russia since 2008 has adopted a series of strategy documents outlining plans that call for, among other things, bolstering the country’s Arctic military capabilities. Russia has reactivated and modernized Arctic military bases that fell into disuse with the end of the Cold War, assigned upgraded forces to those bases, and increased military exercises and training operations in the Arctic.¹⁸⁶

Prior to Russia’s war in Ukraine, some observers expressed growing concern at these developments. Other observers noted the cooperative aspects of relations among the Arctic states, including Russia, and argued, that the competitive aspects were overstated.¹⁸⁷ Some observers argued that Russia’s military investment in the Arctic were sometimes exaggerated, reflected normal modernization of aging capabilities, or was intended partly for domestic Russian consumption.¹⁸⁸ As noted earlier, Russia’s war in Ukraine has heightened concerns among the A7 states and other observers about the purpose behind Russia’s military modernization in the Arctic.

is a very critical place on the—on the globe. It is the intersection of the areas of responsibility of a couple of combatant commands, you know, the Indo-Pacific Command, which is really important to us, as well as Northern Command. It truly is a place where we think that as we continue to—to develop our capabilities here, it will certainly help us in our efforts to—to create capacity and capability that allows us to do what we set out to do in increasing the competitive edge with adversaries like—like China and Russia.

See also Hilde-Gunn Bye, “US Secretary of Defense Highlights the Importance of Alaska,” High North News, August 2 (updated August 3), 2021; Robert Delaney, “Arctic Is Key Region in Countering China’s Aggression, US Air Force Officials Say,” South China Morning Post, July 28, 2021; Carla Babb, “Alaska Seen as Strategic US Military Asset Against China, Russia,” Voice of America, July 25, 2021.

186 Regarding Russian military presence and operations in the Arctic, see, for example, Paul Goble, “Moscow to Build Drone Bases Along Arctic Coast to Compensate for Weakening Position There,” Eurasia Daily Monitor, April 18, 2024; Atle Staalesen, “Moscow Says It Will Build Drone Bases Along Arctic Coast,” Barents Observer, April 15, 2024; Thomas Nilsen, “2023 Saw More Russian Strategic Bombers Outside Norway,” Barents Observer, January 15, 2024; Richard R. Burgess, “Navy Admirals Detail Russian Arctic Build-Up,” Seapower, February 15, 2023; Rich Abott, “Panel: Russian Posture In Arctic Becoming More Offensive, Reconstituting Soviet Abilities,” Defense Daily, February 10, 2023; John Grady, “Russian Arctic Threat Growing More Potent, Report Says,” USNI News, January 26, 2023 (regarding the CSIS report cited next); Colin Wall and Njord Wegge, The Russian Arctic Threat, Consequences of the Ukraine War, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), January 2023, 16 pp.; Malte Humpert, “From Ukraine to the Arctic: Russia’s Capabilities in the Region and the War’s Impact on the North,” High North News, September 22 (updated September 28), 2022. See also Heather A. Conley and Joseph S. Bermudez Jr., Ice Curtain: Tiksi Airbase—Many Russian Announcements, Little Equipment, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), March 2020, 9 pp.; Heather A. Conley and Joseph S. Bermudez Jr., Ice Curtain: Why Is There a New Russian Military Facility 300 Miles from Alaska? Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), March 2020, 6 pp.; Matthew Melino, Heather A. Conley, and Joseph S. Bermudez Jr., Modernization on the Kola Peninsula, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), March 2020, 15 pp.; Matthew Melino and Heather A. Conley, “The Ice Curtain: Russia’s Arctic Military Presence,” Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), March 26, 2020.

187 See, for example, Robert David English and Morgan Grant Gardner, “Phantom Peril in the Arctic, Russia Doesn’t Threaten the United States in the Far North—But Climate Change Does,” Foreign Affairs, September 29, 2020; Mia Bennett, “U.S. Rhetoric About the Strategic Importance of the Arctic Is Out of Step with Its Spending Priorities,” ArcticToday, July 26, 2019; “Arctic Conflict With Russia ‘Not Likely In The Short-Term’, Analyst Says,” Forces, January 30, 2019.

188 See, for example, Hilde-Gunn Bye, “Russia Pays Considerable Attention to Improve Arctic Infrastructure, Says Defence Minister,” High North News, April 14, 2021; Michael B. Petersen and Rebecca Pincus, “Arctic Militarization and Russian Military Theory,” Orbis, 2021; Lyle Goldstein, “Washington Should Chill Out over Russia’s Arctic (continued...)

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 45

U.S. and Allied Arctic Military Activities

In General

DOD and the Coast Guard (which is part of the Department of Homeland Security [DHS]) are devoting increased attention to the Arctic in their planning, budgeting, and operations. DOD as a whole, the Army, the Navy and Marine Corps, the Air Force, and the Coast Guard have each issued Arctic strategy documents.¹⁸⁹ DOD’s strategy document states that

DoD, in cooperation with our Allies and partners, will pursue an end state that preserves the Arctic as a stable region in which the U.S. homeland remains secure and vital national interests are safeguarded.

The [2022] NDS [National Defense Strategy] directs that activities in the Arctic will be calibrated to reflect a “monitor-and-respond” approach that is underpinned by robust intelligence collection capabilities, security cooperation with our regional Allies and partners, and the deterrent value of DoD’s ability to deploy the Joint Force globally at the time and place of our choosing. This [DOD Arctic] strategy guides DoD’s efforts to build and sustain this monitor-and-respond approach to the Arctic. Implementing this strategy will enable DoD to achieve our desired end state for the region, aligning with efforts to strengthen homeland defense, safeguard U.S. interests, and improve interoperability with Arctic Allies and partners while preserving focus on the pacing challenge of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) globally.

Climate change and shifts in the geostrategic environment drive the need for a new strategic approach to the Arctic region. This strategy will strengthen the ability of the United States to build integrated deterrence and effectively manage risk to U.S. interests in the Arctic

Ambitions,” Defense News, November 13, 2020; Robert D. English, “Why an Arctic Arms Race Would Be a Mistake,” ArcticToday, June 18, 2020; Marc Montgomery, “Russia’s Military Feat in Arctic, Spectacular, But No Real Threat to West,” Radio Canada International, May 12, 2020; Elizabeth Buchanan and Mathieu Boulègue, “Russia’s Military Exercises in the Arctic Have More Bark Than Bite,” Foreign Policy, May 20, 2019; Mathieu Boulègue, “Russia's Military Posture in the Arctic,” Chatham House, June 28, 2019 (updated December 15, 2020); Arne F. Finne, “Russia Is a Responsible Actor in the Arctic,” High North News, January 22, 2019. See also Hilde-Gunn Bye, “From Norway to North America: Differing Views On New Russian Weapon Systems,” High North News, February 24, 2020.

189 See the following documents, some of which are successors to documents issued in earlier years by the same organizations:

• Department of Defense, 2024 Arctic Strategy, with cover letter dated June 21, 2024, released July 22, 2024, 18 pp.;

• Department of the Army, Regaining Arctic Dominance, The U.S. Army in the Arctic, January 19, 2021, 48 pp.;

• Department of the Navy, A Blue Arctic, A Strategic Blueprint for the Arctic, undated, released January 5, 2021, 25 pp.;

• Department of the Air Force, Arctic Strategy, Ensuring a Stable Arctic Through Vigilance, Power Projection, Cooperation, and Preparation, undated, with cover letter dated July 21, 2020, 14 pp.; and

• U.S. Coast Guard, Arctic Strategic Outlook, April 2019, 45 pp.

Regarding DOD’s strategy document, see also Lolita C. Baldor, “Pentagon Arctic Report Calls for More Investment in Sensors, Equipment to Keep Up with Russia, China,” Associated Press, July 22, 2024; Danielle Bochove, “Pentagon to Bolster Response to China, Russia in Arctic,” Bloomberg, July 22, 2024; Brad Dress, “Pentagon Announces New Arctic Strategy as Region Becomes More Contested,” The Hill, July 22, 2024; Sandra Erwin, “Pentagon’s Arctic strategy emphasizes space and satellite capabilities,” Space News, July 22, 2024; Patrick Tucker, “Pentagon’s New Arctic Strategy Focuses on Adversaries, New Tech,” Defense One, July 22, 2024; Idrees Ali, with additional reporting by Greg Torode and Ethan Wang, “Pentagon Concerned at Growing Arctic Cooperation between China and Russia,” Reuters, July 23, 2024. Regarding the Army, see also Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate staff, “Army Developing First Arctic Doctrine in More than 50 Years,” U.S. Army, January 23, 2024.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 46

region by enhancing our domain awareness and Arctic capabilities; engaging with Allies, partners, and key stakeholders; and exercising tailored presence.¹⁹⁰

Primary risks to the success of this strategy stem from the need to balance against other DoD global commitments or find ways to integrate with other resource requirements. As such, DoD Components should take these risks into account during resourcing deliberations through DoD’s established processes.

All U.S. military services are conducting increased exercises and training operations in the Arctic—some in conjunction with forces from the other A7 states and with non-A7 NATO allies—that are aimed at

• reacquainting U.S. forces with—and responding to changes in—operating conditions in the region,

• identifying Arctic military capability gaps,

• rebuilding Arctic-specific warfighting skills that eroded during the post-Cold War era,

• testing the performance of equipment under Arctic conditions,

• strengthening interoperability with allied forces for conducting operations in the region, and

• sending Russia and China signals of resolve and commitment regarding the Arctic.¹⁹¹

In addition to these increased exercises and training operations, the Coast Guard, as a major acquisition project, is procuring new polar icebreakers called Polar Security Cutters (PSCs) to replace its aging heavy polar icebreakers. (For further discussion of this program, see the next section of this report on icebreakers.)

Canada, the UK, and the Nordic countries are taking steps to increase their own military presence and operations in the region, and as noted above, have participated alongside U.S. military forces

190 Department of Defense, 2024 Arctic Strategy, with cover letter dated June 21, 2024, released July 22, 2024, p. 1.

191 See, for example, Thomas Nilsen, “Key Allies US and Norway on Move in Lapland as Thousands of Soldiers Train Rapid Reinforcement,” Barents Observer, May 28, 2024; Alex Horton, “In the Arctic, American commandos game out a great-power war,” Washington Post, April 11, 2024; Bill Gertz, “New Heights of Warfare: Marines Train in Mountainous, Arctic Conditions,” Washington Times, April 3, 2024; Drew F. Lawrence, “On the Ice with Marines Preparing for War in the Arctic,” Military.com, March 29, 2024; John Vandiver, “Arctic Brigade’s Polar Parachute Jump Demonstrates Rapid Response in Norway,” Stars and Stripes, March 20, 2024; Alex Candlin, “Arctic Angels: US Paras Swap Alaska for Norway as They Drop in for Exercise Arctic Shock,” Forces News, March 19, 2024; Josh Lederman and Carlo Angerer, “U.S. Marines Join NATO Exercises on Freezing Norway Tundra, as New Battlefield Emerges in Arctic,” NBC News, March 16, 2024; Drew F. Lawrence, “Above the Arctic Circle, Infantry Marines Are Improvising to Battle Harsh Conditions as Part of NATO Force,” Military.com, March 7, 2024; Drew F. Lawrence, “Supply or Die: Sustaining Marines in the High North so They Can Fight and Win a Future War,” Military.com, March 12, 2024; Todd South, “Marines Hit the High North in Separate Arctic Exercises,” Marine Corps Times, March 7, 2024; Joe Lacdan, “Soldiers Prepare for Combat Operations in the Arctic,” U.S. Army, March 1, 2024; Hilde-Gunn Bye, “Regaining Arctic Expertise: US Troops in Alaska Making Strides to Become the Army's Arctic Force,” High North News, February 29 (updated March 1), 2024; Chris Panella, “The US Army Is Breeding a New Kind of Arctic Warrior by ‘Testing the Mettle of the Human’ in Freezing Alaska, Commander Says,” Business Insider, February 29, 2024; Todd South, “8,000+ Soldiers Tested in Large-Scale Combat in the Arctic,” Military Times, February 26, 2024; Astri Edvardsen, “US Strategic Bombers Deployed in Northern Sweden,” High North News, February 27 (updated February 28), 2024; Astri Edvardsen (translation by Birgitte Annie Molid Martinussen), “Nordic Response: Over 20 000 Soldiers From 13 Nations Will Practice Defending NATO's Northern Flank,” High North News, February 2 (updated February 14), 2024.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 47

in certain Arctic exercises.¹⁹² NATO is conducting increased exercises in the region, some of which have been large exercises involving thousands of personnel from multiple countries.

Arctic Divided Between USNORTHCOM and USEUCOM

Under DOD’s Unified Command Plan (UCP),¹⁹³ responsibility for the Arctic is divided between U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) and U.S. European Command (USEUCOM). USNORTHCOM is responsible for the North American side of the Arctic, including the North Pole and the Davis Strait that separates Canada from Greenland. USEUCOM is responsible for the European and Russian side of the Arctic, including Greenland.¹⁹⁴

U.S. Navy and Coast Guard

The diminishment of Arctic ice is creating new operating areas in the Arctic for Navy surface ships and Coast Guard cutters.¹⁹⁵ The Navy has increased deployments of attack submarines and surface ships to the Arctic for exercises and other operations. The Coast Guard annually deploys a polar icebreaker, other cutters, and aircraft into the region to perform various Coast Guard missions and to better understand the implications of operating such units there. Key points relating to the Navy and Coast Guard in the Arctic that have emerged over the past 10 to 15 years include the following:

• SAR in the Arctic is a mission of increasing importance, particularly for the Coast Guard, and one that poses potentially significant operational challenges.¹⁹⁶

192 See, for example, Murray Brewster, “Canada, Germany and Norway Discussing a Security Pact to Cover the North Atlantic and Arctic,” CBC News, June 20, 2024; Astri Edvardsen (translation by Birgitte Annie Molid Martinussen), “UK Aircraft Carrier in the North: ‘A Formidable Show of Strength,’” High North News, March 15 (updated March 21), 2024; Luke Carroll, “Canada Showcases Ability to Defend Arctic amid Global Tensions,” CBC News, March 13, 2024; Thomas Nilsen, “Swedish Forces Exercise in Northern Norway as the Country Officially Joins NATO,” Barents Observer, March 7, 2024; Jari Tanner, “Newly Enlarged NATO Starts Drill in Finland, Norway and Sweden in Defense of its Nordic Turf,” Associated Press, March 4, 2024; Brett Simpson, “Scandinavia Is Preparing for War, As NATO Expands, Europe’s Far North Is Tangibly Shifting to Combat Footing,” Foreign Policy, February 9, 2024; Louise Breusch Rasmussen, “Denmark Sets Aside $400 Mln for Drone Surveillance in Arctic, North Atlantic,” Reuters, January 19, 2024; Tim Martin, “Sweden ‘Beefing Up’ Military Presence in Arctic to Counter Russian Threat,” Breaking Defense, October 4, 2023; Astri Edvardsen, “Increased Allied Military Presence in Iceland,” High North News, September 6 (updated September 7), 2023; Tom Dunlop, “UK and NATO Allies Conduct Major Exercise in Arctic Circle,” UK Defence Journal, August 2, 2023; Astri Edvardsen, “The Nordic Region Strengthens Double-Edged Defense Cooperation With the US,” High North News, February 17, 2023; Astri Edvardsen, “Norway Explores Cooperation With the US and UK on Maritime Surveillance in the High North,” High North News, February 10, 2023;Elisabeth Gosselin-Malo, “Norway Special Operators Field Pitches on Fresh, Arctic-Capable Gear,” Defense News, February 9, 2023; Hilde-Gunn Bye, “Allied and Norwegian Forces Prepare for the Largest Military Exercise in Norway in 2023,” High North News, February 1 (updated February 3), 2023.

193 For more on the UCP, see CRS In Focus IF10542, Defense Primer: Commanding U.S. Military Operations, coordinated by Michael J. Vassalotti.

194 For a map showing USNORTHCOM and USEUCOM areas of responsibility in the Arctic, see Department of Defense, 2024 Arctic Strategy, with cover letter dated June 21, 2024, released July 22, 2024, PDF page 2 of 28.

195 See, for example, Sonoko Kuhara, “What the ‘Blue Arctic’ Means for the US Pacific Military Presence,” Diplomat, August 21, 2021; Seapower Staff, “U.S. Coast Guard Cutters Patrol the U.S. Arctic,” Seapower, August 13, 2021.

196 See, for example, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Arctic Search and Rescue, Fiscal Year 2017 Report to Congress, March 13, 2018, 16 pp.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 48

• More complete and detailed information on the Arctic as an operating area is needed to more properly support expanded Navy and Coast Guard ship and aircraft operations in the region.¹⁹⁷

• The Navy and the Coast Guard currently have limited infrastructure in place in the Arctic to support expanded ship and aircraft operations in the Arctic.¹⁹⁸

• Improved communication abilities are needed, because existing U.S. military communications systems were designed to support operations in lower latitudes rather than in the polar regions. Improved capabilities for conducting surveillance and reconnaissance in the region are needed so as to support improved domain awareness (DMA), meaning real-time or near-real-time awareness of military and other activities taking place across the region. U.S. military services are taking actions to address the need for improved communications and improved surveillance and reconnaissance in the Arctic.¹⁹⁹

• Navy officials have stated that they do not see a strong near-term need for building ice-hardened surface ships and deploying them into the Atlantic, but acknowledge that such a need might emerge in the future.²⁰⁰

• Cooperation with other Arctic countries will be valuable in achieving defense and homeland security goals.

Some Specific Developments

U.S. and Canada Plan to Update Warning Radars in Arctic

The United States and Canada are working together to modernize the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). Efforts are to include joint investments in new sensing and command and control capabilities for defending against ballistic missile threats.”²⁰¹

197 See, for example, Sarena Padilla and Garner Fleming, “Navy, Coast Guard, NOAA Work to Improve Arctic Forecasting for U.S., Allied Forces,” Defense Opinion, February 20, 2023.

198 See, for example, Identifying Potential Gaps in U.S. Coast Guard Arctic Capabilities, Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center (HSOAC), 2018, 100 pp.

199 See, for example, Jon Harper, “Northern Command Testing Commercial Satcom Capabilities in the Arctic,” Fedscoop, May 5, 2022; Walker D. Mills, “Solving Communications Gaps in the Arctic with Balloons,” Center for International Maritime Security (CIMSEC), August 23, 2021; Bill Liquori and Iris Ferguson, “How the US Space Force Plans to Improve Arctic Communication,” C4ISRNet, July 14, 2021.

200 See, for example, Ben Werner, “Arleigh Burke Destroyers Are More Viable Option for Near-Term Navy Presence in Arctic,” USNI News, September 18, 2019; Megan Eckstein, “CNO: Arctic Operations Limited Now, But Future Ship Designs Should Consider Environment,” USNI News, September 12, 2016.

201 See, for example, Jeff Pelletier, “Biden, Trudeau Promise Upgrades to Arctic Defence,” Nunatsiaq News, March 24, 2023; Murray Brewster, “A Plan to Plug Gaps in the Continent’s Arctic Defence Shield Faces Roadblocks,” CBC News, January 4, 2023; Michael Peck, “The US and Canada Are Updating a Cold War-Era System to Keep an Eye on Russian and Chinese Missiles. Experts Say They Need to Add a Lot More Territory Too,” Business Insider, October 26, 2022; Hilde-Gunn Bye, “Canada to Spend Billions on Modernizing Air Defense in the Arctic,” High North News, June 21 (updated June 23), 2022; Lee Berthiaume (Canadian Press), “Ukraine War Sparks Fresh Worries About North America’s Own Defences,” CBC, March 5, 2022. See also by Caitlin Lee and Aidan Poling, Bolstering Arctic Domain Awareness to Deter Air & Missile Threats to the Homeland, Mitchell Institute, June 2023, 31 pp.; Murray Brewster, “Canada Spending Almost $5B to Upgrade Continental Defence, Anand Says,” CBC News, June 20, 2022; Paul Vieira, “Canada Plans Billions in Military Spending to Counter Russia Threat in Arctic,” Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2022.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 49

Impact of Warmer Temperatures on Bases in Alaska and Exercises in Norway

DOD’s September 2021 draft climate adaptation plan states “In the Arctic, permafrost plays an important role regarding natural and built infrastructure. For example, it provides stability of large acreages of wetlands and lakes across the tundra. Permafrost thaw threatens to undermine roads and structural foundations.”²⁰² An August 2020 press report identified Eielson Air Force Base southeast of Fairbanks, Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks, and Clear Space Force Station south of Anderson (previously known as Clear Air Force Base) as locations where facilities have been impacted by thawing permafrost.²⁰³

A May 2023 congressionally mandated DOD report on the impact of changes in permafrost on DOD infrastructure, facilities, and operations examined eight DOD installations—six in Alaska, one (the Alaska Radar System and North Warning System) in multiple sites in Alaska and Canada, and one in Greenland. The report states

Potential permafrost thaw poses no risk for facilities and assets located at three of the eight installations (Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Clear Space Force Station (SFS), and Eareckson Air Force Station (AFS)). Permafrost thaw poses minor risk to facilities at Fort Greely. The remaining four (Pituffik Space Base (SB), Eielson Air Force Base (AFB), Fort Wainwright, and the Alaska Radar System and North Warning System (61 total sites with 57 on permafrost) are susceptible to moderate to considerable risk that thaw would cause differential settlement, thus impairing structural integrity or allow ground water infiltration into ground voids leading to freeze/thaw heave. The impacts to the DoD Arctic mission and assets stationed at the at-risk installations, Pituffik Space Base (SB) [formerly Thule Air Base], Eielson AFB, and Fort Wainwright, or located at the at-risk radar sites of the Alaska Radar System and North Warning System could be significant.²⁰⁴

A May 24, 2023, press report stated: “Climate change is rapidly altering the Arctic landscape, in particular the permafrost that serves as a foundation for buildings across the region. Warming temperatures are thawing out the frozen ground, and in the process it is threatening to unsettle structures that were built decades ago. That’s particularly worrisome for the U.S. military, which maintains facilities across the Arctic region. And it’s one reason [Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen] Hicks embarked on a two-day tour of the nation’s northernmost military bases.”²⁰⁵

202 Department of Defense, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment), Department of Defense Draft Climate Adaptation Plan, Report Submitted to National Climate Task Force and Federal Chief Sustainability Officer, September 1, 2021, p. 13.

203 Sara Karlovitch, Luciana Perez-Uribe, Julia Lerner, and Lindsey Collins, “As the World Warms, Costs Rise for Alaska Military Bases,” Anchorage Daily News, August 1, 2020. (Also published as Sara Karlovitch, Luciana Perez- Uribe, Julia Lerner, and Lindsey Collins, “Global Warming Is Having a Costly, and Dangerous, Impact on Key Military Bases in Alaska,” Seattle Times, August 9, 2020.) See also Sharon E. Burke, “The Arctic Threat that Must Not Be Named,” War on the Rocks, January 28, 2021; Brian W. Everstine, “Climate Change Will Guide How the Air Force Builds Arctic Infrastructure,” Air Force Magazine, November 20, 2020; Rhemi Marlatt, “The Intersection of U.S. Military Infrastructure & Alaskan Permafrost Through the 21^st Century,” Arctic Institute, October 27, 2020.

204 Department of Defense, Permafrost Thaw on Infrastructure, Facilities, and Operations of the Department of Defense, Report to Congress, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, May 2023, p. 3. Report accessed July 29, 2024, at https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/Downloads/FIM/2023%20Report%20to%20Congress%20on%20Permafrost%20Thaw.pdf .

205 Daniel Cusick, “U.S. Military Sees Growing Threat in Thawing Permafrost,” E&E News (Scientific American), May 24, 2023. See also Tom Vanden Brook, “Baked Alaska: Climate Change’s Extreme Heat Is Warming the State, and Creating National Security Problems,” USA Today, July 20, 2023. Ellen Knickmeyer, “Climate Toll on Arctic Bases: Sunken Runways, Damaged Roads,” Associated Press, April 15, 2022; Department of Defense, Inspector General, (U) Evaluation of the Department of Defense’s Efforts to Address the (continued...)

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 50

A March 2022 press report stated: “The weather along Norway’s Arctic coast ... is becoming increasingly hard to predict as warming trends change the terrain and storms become more frequent.... The changing conditions mean that U.S. forces will have to adapt how they operate, both for the safety of their forces and the success of any potential future combat operations in the High North.... In the air, pilots must account for more extreme rainfall and storms.... Avalanches are also a greater risk now.”²⁰⁶

October 2023 Coast Guard Arctic Implementation Plan

In October 2023, the Coast Guard released an implementation plan for its 2019 Arctic strategy document.²⁰⁷ The implementation plan includes 14 initiatives.²⁰⁸

September 2022 Establishment of DOD Arctic Strategy and Global Resilience Office

In September 2022, DOD established an office for Arctic strategy and global resilience “to ensure U.S. strategy and policy protects U.S. interests in that crucial region,” and named Iris A. Ferguson as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Arctic and Global Resilience.²⁰⁹

June 2021 DOD Creation of Ted Stevens Center for Arctic Security Studies

In June 2021, DOD announced the creation of “a new DOD center to focus on issues related to the Arctic. The Ted Stevens Center for Arctic Security Studies will be the sixth such regional center for the department.”²¹⁰

April 2021 Agreement Regarding Bases in Norway

On April 16, 2021, “the United States and the Kingdom of Norway concluded the recently negotiated Supplementary Defense Cooperation Agreement (SDCA).... The Agreement supplements the provisions of the 1951 NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and establishes a framework to advance our capabilities, in support of the NATO Alliance’s collective

Climate Resilience of U.S. Military Installations in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic, Report No. DODIG-2022-083, April 13, 2022, 45 pp., declassified version, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://media.defense.gov/2022/Apr/15/2002977604/-1/- 1/1/DODIG-2022-083.PDF. For a press report about this DOD Inspector General report, see Malte Humpert, “U.S. Arctic and Sub-Arctic Military Bases Are Unprepared For Impacts of Climate Change,” High North News, May 3, 2022.

206 Phillip Walter Wellman, “As Weather Warms, Heavy Rains and Avalanches Become Part of Planning for Marines During Arctic Exercise,” Stars and Stripes, March 22, 2022.

207 U.S. Coast Guard, Arctic Strategic Outlook Implementation Plan, October 2023, 25 pp.

208 The 14 initiatives are enhance Arctic operations and exercises; expand Arctic surface capabilities and associated support infrastructure; expand Arctic aviation capabilities; expand Arctic communications capabilities; improve Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA); strengthen the Arctic Coast Guard Forum (ACGF); preserve U.S. leadership in the Arctic Council; modernize the U.S. Arctic marine transportation system (MTS); continue implementation of the IMO Polar Code; strengthen marine environmental preparedness and response; strengthen the Center for Arctic Study and Policy; enhance the Coast Guard’s culture of Arctic innovation; communicate strategically; and formalize the Coast Guard Polar enterprise.

209 Jim Garamone, “DOD Establishes Arctic Strategy and Global Resilience Office,” DOD News, September 27, 2022; Mike Glenn, “Pentagon Establishes New Senior Coordinator for Arctic Policy,” Washington Times, September 27, 2022.

210 Department of Defense news release, “DOD Announces Center to Collaborate on, Advance Shared Interests in Arctic Region,” DOD News, June 9, 2021. See also Department of Defense, “The Department of Defense Announces Establishment of Arctic Regional Center,” June 9, 2021.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 51

defense.... The SDCA includes four initial key locations as focal points for increased cooperation with Norway: Evenes Air Station, Ramsund Naval Station, Rygge Air Station, and Sola Air Station.”²¹¹

August 2018 Reestablishment of 2^nd Fleet

In May 2018, the Navy announced that it would reestablish the 2^nd Fleet, which was the Navy’s fleet during the Cold War for countering Soviet naval forces in the North Atlantic. The fleet’s formal reestablishment occurred in August 2018. The 2^nd Fleet was created in 1950 and disestablished in September 2011. In its newly reestablished form, it is described as focusing on countering Russian naval forces not only in the North Atlantic but in the Arctic as well.²¹²

Sufficiency of U.S. Arctic Military Activities

Some observers have expressed concern about whether the United States is doing enough militarily to defend its interests in the Arctic, and in some cases have offered recommendations for doing more.²¹³ Whether DOD and the Coast Guard are devoting sufficient resources to the Arctic and taking sufficient actions for defending U.S. interests in the region is a topic of congressional oversight.²¹⁴ Those who argue that DOD and the Coast Guard are not devoting sufficient resources and taking sufficient actions argue, for example, that DOD and the Coast Guard should build ice-hardened surface ships other than icebreakers for deployment to the Arctic and/or establish a strategic seaport in Alaska’s north to better support DOD and Coast Guard operations in the Arctic.²¹⁵ (Anchorage, in the southern part of Alaska’s mainland, was designated

211 Department of State, “U.S.-Norway Supplementary Defense Cooperation Agreement (SDCA),” Fact Sheet, Bureau Of Political-Military Affairs, April 16, 2021; Government of Norway, “Norway signs Supplementary Defense Cooperation Agreement with the United States,” April 16, 2021. See also Chad Garland, “US Can Build Military Facilities in Norway Under New Defense Cooperation Pact,” Stars and Stripes, April 16, 2021; Thomas Nilsen, “U.S. Navy Will Build Airport Infrastructure in Northern Norway to Meet Upped Russian Submarine Presence,” Barents Observer, April 16, 2021; Terje Solsvik and Nerijus Adomaitis, “Norway to Allow U.S. Military to Build on Its Soil in New Accord,” Reuters, April 16, 2021; Paul McLeary, “Norway, US Bolster Russian Sub Watching With New Bases,” Breaking Defense, April 19, 2021.

212 See, for example, Christopher Woody, “The US Navy’s Newest Fleet Is Bulking Up for ‘Leaner, Agile’ Operations to Counter Russia in the Atlantic and the Arctic,” Business Insider, January 18, 2019; Patricia Kime, “The Navy Isd gearing Up for ‘Leaner, Agile’ Operations in Arctic, North Atlantic,” Military.com, January 16, 2019; Rich Abott, “2^nd Fleet To Be Fully Operational in 2019, Sees Real Russian Threat,” Defense Daily, December 3, 2018; Sam LaGrone, “U.S. 2^nd Fleet Racing Toward a 2019 Operational Capability,” USNI News, November 29, 2018; Paul McLeary, “New Second Fleet To Stay Lean, Unpredictable, Commander Says; & Watching China,” Breaking Defense, November 29, 2018; Sam LaGrone, “CNO: New 2^nd Fleet Boundary Will Extend North to the Edge of Russian Waters,” USNI News, August 24, 2018.

213 See, for example, Kenneth R. Rosen, “The End of American Exceptionalism in the High North,” Foreign Policy, June 7, 2024; Chan Mo Ku and Jinwan Park, “Time to Create a New Quad for the Arctic Pacific to Counter China and Russia,” Breaking Defense, May 23, 2024; Liselotte Odgaard, “NATO Is Unprepared for Russia’s Arctic Threats,” Foreign Policy, April 1, 2024; Theresa Hitchens, “Amid Chinese Activity, New NORTHCOM Chief Calls for More Exercises Near Arctic,” Breaking Defense, March 14, 2024; John Grady, “U.S. Fleet Forces Commander Focused on Arctic, Increased Naval Presence in Region,” USNI News, March 6, 2024; Sonner Kehrt, “US Military Can’t Sustain Arctic Operations, ‘Let Alone Dominate,’ Experts Say,” War Horse, January 18, 2024; Abbie Tingstad et al., Report on the Arctic Capabilities of the U.S. Armed Forces, RAND, 2023, 89 pp.; Mark Green, “Russia, China and the Threat to the North Pole, The U.S. Needs More Icebreakers and Other Arctic Defenses,” Wall Street Journal, January 5, 2024.

214 See, for example, Riley Rogerson, “Top US Northern Command Official Calls Arctic Military Resources Insufficient at Senate Hearing,” Anchorage Daily News, March 23, 2023.

215 Brian W. Everstine, “DOD Leaders Want More Arctic Funding, But Not Right Now,” Air Force Magazine, June 17, 2021; Greg Hadley, “VanHerck: Services ‘Didn’t Move the Ball Very Far’ With Arctic Spending in 2022,” Air Force Magazine, June 10, 2021.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 52

a U.S. strategic seaport for supporting DOD operations in 2004.²¹⁶) A June 2023 press report stated that a $600 million project to expand port facilities at Nome, Alaska, will make Nome “the nation’s first deepwater Arctic port. The expansion, expected to be operational by the end of the decade, will accommodate not just larger cruise ships of up to 4,000 passengers, but cargo ships to deliver additional goods for the 60 Alaska Native villages in the region, and military vessels to counter the presence of Russian and Chinese ships in the Arctic.”²¹⁷

Selected FY2024 and FY2025 Legislative Provisions

FY2024 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2670/S. 2226 /P.L. 118-31)

The conference report (H.Rept. 118-301 of December 6, 2023) on H.R. 2670/P.L. 118-31 of December 22, 2023, directs DOD to submit to the congressional defense committees on DOD roles and responsibilities in support of the National Strategy for the Arctic Region (page 1245).

FY2024 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 4365/S. 2587/Division A of H.R. 2882/P.L. 118-47)

The House Appropriations Committee’s report (H.Rept. 118-121 of June 27, 2023) on H.R. 4365 requires DOD, in coordination with the Navy and the Department of Homeland Security, to brief the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on DOD’s current maritime polar capability and capacity and provide a threat-based assessment of future requirements in the regions (page 62).

FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 8070/S. 4638)

In H.R. 8070 as reported by the House Armed Services Committee (H.Rept. 118-529 of May 31, 2024) and passed by the House,

• Section 1069A would direct the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard to submit a report on a tri-service Arctic maritime strategy;

• Section 1087 would direct DOD to establish or designate one or more University Centers for Arctic National Security Studies at institutions of higher education;

• Section 1241 would direct the U.S. Special Operations Command, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Commander of the U.S. Northern Command, to develop and submit a Special Operations Forces Arctic Security

216 See, for example, Patti Bielling, “Anchorage Is Named DoD’s Newest Strategic Seaport,” Military Surface Deployment & Distribution Command (SSDC), news release No. 028-2004, August 17, 2004, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.portofalaska.com/wp-content/uploads/2006_POA_Strategic_Seaport_Press_Release.pdf. For more on U.S. strategic seaports, see U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, “National Port Readiness Network (NPRN),” updated December 7, 2021, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.maritime.dot.gov/ports/strong- ports/national-port-readiness-network-nprn; Kevin Tokarski, “The Maritime Administration Strategic Ports Program,” second of three briefings (slides 11 through 23 of 41), accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.aapa-ports.org/files/ 2019AnnualConvention/Strategic%20Ports.pdf; Government Accountability Office, Defense Logistics: The Department of Defense’s Report on Strategic Seaports Addressed All Congressionally Directed Elements, GAO-13- 511R, May 13, 2013, 23 pp.; Rolando C. Baez, “The Strategic Seaport Program: Ensuring Transportation Readiness,” U.S. Army, January 10, 2017; Joan Bondareff and Kate Scontras, “Strategic Seaports,” Maritime Reporter, December 2012: 16-17, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://magazines.marinelink.com/nwm/MaritimeReporter/201212/#page/18, and reprinted (with bylines of Joan M. Bondareff and Katherine V. Scontras), at https://www.blankrome.com/ publications/strategic-seaports.

217 Mark Thiessen, “Cruising to Nome: The First U.S. Deep Water Port for the Arctic to Host Cruise Ships, Military,” Associated Press, June 18, 2023.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 53

Strategy, applicable across each component of the special operations forces and within each Armed Force; and

• Section 1250 would direct DOD, in consultation with the Department of State and the Director of National Intelligence, to submit a report on any military activities of Russia in the Arctic, and any military activities of China in the Arctic.²¹⁸

In S. 4638 as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee (S.Rept. 118-188 of July 8, 2024), Section 1063 would direct DOD to submit a report for each fiscal year for FY2026 through FY2031 on resourcing DOD’s Arctic strategy that includes five-year cost data associated with implementing the strategy.²¹⁹

FY2025 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 8774/S. 4921)

The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 118-204 of August 1, 2024) on S. 4921, recommends additional FY2025 funding for polar airlift aircraft and directs the Air Force to provide a plan for spending both this recommended additional FY2025 funding and additional funding for polar airlift aircraft that was appropriated in the FY2024 DOD Appropriations Act (Division A of H.R. 2882/P.L. 118-47 of March 23, 2024). (Pages 22-23) S.Rept. 118-204 also encourages DOD to seek opportunities to partner with interagency organizations, the Center for Arctic Security and Resiliency, and the Joint All Domain Weather Operations Center to coordinate federal agency planning for Arctic operations. (Page 51)

Polar Icebreaking²²⁰

Within the U.S. government, the Coast Guard is the U.S. agency responsible for polar icebreaking. The Coast Guard’s large icebreakers are called polar icebreakers rather than Arctic icebreakers because they perform missions in both the Arctic and Antarctic.

The Coast Guard’s polar icebreakers do not simply break ice—they are multimission cutters that conduct a variety of other operations that are conducted in lower-latitude waters by the Coast Guard’s general-purpose cutters. U.S. polar ice operations conducted in large part by the Coast Guard’s polar icebreakers support 9 of the Coast Guard’s 11 statutory missions.²²¹

218 In addition, H.Rept. 118-529

• directs the Army to provide a briefing on current gaps in capabilities, training, and equipment that currently inhibit full execution of the Army’s Arctic strategy, and on a plan to align the Army’s organize, train, and equip functions to address identified gaps (page 11),

• directs the Air Force to submit a report outlining polar tactical airlift requirements (pages 36-37), and

• directs DOD to provide a briefing on DOD’s plans for developing dry or waterless decontamination requirements, and for fielding capabilities, in support of DOD’s Arctic strategy (page 124).

219 In addition, S.Rept. 118-188 “urges DOD to ensure they are appropriately staffed with experts on the conditions in the Arctic region to ensure that intelligence collection, research, and analysis are conducted effectively”; states that “[e]stablishing strategically located, scalable field research centers known as Arctic Watchtowers to conduct on-the- ground research in Arctic gateways could improve the reliability and breadth of monitoring data to inform DOD decision making”; and “encourages the Secretary of Defense to consider investments in watchtower research efforts in the Arctic and near-Arctic region as part of DOD support in execution of the Arctic strategy” (pages 237-238).

220 This section was prepared by Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division. It adapts material from CRS Report RL34391, Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (Polar Icebreaker) Program: Background and Issues for Congress.

221 The nine missions supported by polar ice operations are search and rescue; maritime safety; aids to navigation; ice (continued...)

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 54

The operational U.S. polar icebreaking fleet currently consists of one heavy polar icebreaker, Polar Star, and one medium polar icebreaker, Healy. In addition to Polar Star, the Coast Guard has a second heavy polar icebreaker, Polar Sea. Polar Sea, however, suffered an engine casualty in June 2010 and has been nonoperational since then. Polar Star and Polar Sea entered service in 1977 and 1977, respectively, and are now well beyond their originally intended 30-year service lives. The Coast Guard has used Polar Sea as a source of spare parts for keeping Polar Star operational.²²²

Operations to support National Science Foundation (NSF) research activities in both polar regions account for a significant portion of U.S. polar icebreaker operations. Providing support for NSF’s research in the Antarctic focuses on performing an annual mission, called Operation Deep Freeze (ODF), to break through Antarctic sea ice so as to reach and resupply McMurdo Station, the large U.S. Antarctic research station located on the shore of McMurdo Sound, near the Ross Ice Shelf. The Coast Guard’s medium polar icebreaker, Healy, spends most of its operational time in the Arctic supporting NSF research activities and performing other operations.

Even with the diminishment of polar ice, there are still significant ice-covered areas in the polar regions, and diminishment of polar ice could lead in coming years to increased commercial cargo ship, cruise ship, research ship, and naval surface ship operations, as well as increased exploration for oil and other resources, in the Arctic. Such activities could require increased levels of support from polar icebreakers, particularly since waters described as “ice free” can actually still have some amount of ice.

Some observers have identified polar icebreaking capacity as a component of U.S.-Russia (or U.S.-China) competition in the Arctic, and express concern about what they view as a U.S. “icebreaker gap” compared to the much-larger Russian polar icebreaker fleet.²²³ Other observers disagree with that perspective.²²⁴

The Coast Guard in its FY2013 budget initiated a program, now known as the Polar Security Cutter (PSC) program, to acquire new heavy polar icebreakers. The Coast Guard aims to acquire four or five new PSCs, to be followed at some later point by the acquisition of new Arctic Security Cutters (ASCs) (i.e., medium polar icebreakers). The PSC program has received a total of about $1,731.8 million in procurement funding through FY2024. One oversight issue concerns the accuracy of the PSC’s estimated procurement cost, given the PSC’s size and internal complexity, as well as cost growth in other Navy and Coast Guard shipbuilding programs. If substantial cost growth occurs in the PSC program, it could raise a question regarding whether to grant some form of contract relief to the PSC shipbuilder. Another oversight issue concerns the delivery date for the first PSC: the Coast Guard originally aimed to have the first PSC delivered

operations; marine environmental protection; living marine resources; other law enforcement (protect the exclusive economic zone [EEZ]); ports, waterways and costal security; and defense readiness. The two missions not supported by polar ice operations are illegal drug interdiction and undocumented migrant interdiction. (Department of Homeland Security, Polar Icebreaking Recapitalization Project Mission Need Statement, Version 1.0, approved by DHS June 28, 2013, p. 10.)

222 See CRS Report RL34391, Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (Polar Icebreaker) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.

223 See, for example, Ella Sherman, “The US Military Doesn’t Have the Icebreakers to Compete in the Arctic and Is ‘Severely Outnumbered’ by Russia, Commander Warns,” Business Insider, March 14, 2024; Mike Glenn, “U.S. Icebreaker Gap with Russia a Growing Concern as Arctic ‘Cold War’ Heats Up,” Washington Times, September 23, 2021.

224 See, for example, Paul C. Avey, “The Icebreaker Gap Doesn’t Mean America Is Losing In The Arctic,” War on the Rocks, November 28, 2019.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 55

in 2024, but the ship’s estimated delivery date has been delayed repeatedly and may now occur no earlier than 2029.

In addition to the PSC program, the Coast Guard’s proposed FY2024 budget requested, and the FY2024 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations Act (Division C of H.R. 2882/P.L. 118-47 of March 23, 2024) provided, $125.0 million in procurement funding for the purchase of an existing commercially available polar icebreaker (CAPI) that is to be modified to become a Coast Guard medium polar icebreaker. The ship the Coast Guard intends to purchase and modify is Aiviq, a U.S.-registered ship that was originally built to serve as an Arctic oil- exploration support ship, and which has an icebreaking capability sufficient for the ship to serve following modification as a Coast Guard medium polar icebreaker.

Search and Rescue (SAR)²²⁵

Increasing sea and air traffic through Arctic waters has increased concerns regarding Arctic-area SAR capabilities.²²⁶ Given the location of current U.S. Coast Guard operating bases, it could take Coast Guard aircraft several hours, and Coast Guard cutters days or even weeks, to reach a ship in distress or a downed aircraft in Arctic waters. The Coast Guard states that “the closest Coast Guard Air Station to the Arctic is located in Kodiak, AK, approximately 820 nautical miles south of Utqiagvik, AK, which is nearly the same distance as from Boston, MA, to Miami, FL.”²²⁷ In addition to such long distances, the harsh climate complicates SAR operations in the region.

Particular concern has been expressed about cruise ships carrying large numbers of civilian passengers that may experience problems and need assistance.²²⁸ There have been incidents of this kind with cruise ships in waters off Antarctica. In August 2018, a Russian-flagged passenger ship with 162 people on board ran aground on Canada’s Northwest Passage,²²⁹ and in September 2023, a Bahamas-flagged cruise ship with 206 people on board ran aground in Alpefjord, Greenland.²³⁰

The Coast Guard participates in exercises focused on improving Arctic SAR capabilities. Further increasing U.S. Coast Guard SAR capabilities for the Arctic could require one or more of the following: enhancing or creating new Coast Guard operating bases in the region; procuring additional Arctic-capable aircraft, cutters, and rescue boats for the Coast Guard; and adding

225 This section was prepared by Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.

226 See, for example, Elías Thorsson, “Increased Arctic Shipping Brings Increased Risks,” Arctic Business Journal, October 21, 2023.

227 Coast Guard, Arctic Strategic Outlook, April 2019, p. 11.

228 See, for example, Lara Johannsdottir, David Cook, and Gisele M. Arruda, “Systemic Risk of Cruise Ship Incidents from an Arctic and Insurance Perspective,” Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, University of California Press, 2021.

229 Malte Humpert, “A Cruise Ship Runs Aground in Canada’s Arctic Waters; The Akademik Ioffe’s Sister Ship Was Nearby, and Together with Canadian Coast guard Ships, Was Able to Rescue All Passengers,” ArcticToday, August 28, 2018.

230 Danielle Bochove and Ragnhildur Sigurdardottir, “Freed Cruise Ship Shows Risks of More Traffic in Remote Arctic,” Bloomberg, September 14, 2023; Li Cohen, “Luxury Cruise Ship that Ran Aground in Greenland with Over 200 People on Board Is Freed,” CBS News, September 14, 2023; Essi Lehto and Louise Breusch Rasmussen, “Cruise Ship Pulled Free After Running Aground in Greenland,” Reuters, September 14, 2023; Zahid Mahmood, Benjamin Brown, James Frater, and Sahar Akbarzai, “Ocean Explorer: Luxury Cruise Ship Freed after Running Aground in a Greenland Fjord,” CNN, September 14, 2023; Jan M. Olsen, “A Fishing Vessel in Greenland Will Try to Free a Cruise Ship that Ran Aground with 206 People,” Associated Press, September 13, 2023; Heidi Pérez-Moreno, “Cruise Ship Freed after Being Stranded in Greenland for Days,” Washington Post, September 13, 2023 (updated September 14).

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 56

systems to improve Arctic maritime communications, navigation, and domain awareness. It may also entail enhanced forms of cooperation with navies and coast guards of other Arctic countries.

On May 12, 2011, representatives from the member states of the Arctic Council, meeting in Nuuk, Greenland, signed an agreement on cooperation on aeronautical and maritime SAR in the Arctic.²³¹ The agreement divides the Arctic into SAR areas within which each party has primary responsibility for conducting SAR operations. Figure 6 shows a map of the national areas of SAR responsibility based on the geographic coordinates listed in the Annex to the agreement.

Figure 6. Arctic SAR Areas in Arctic SAR Agreement

(Based on geographic coordinates listed in the agreement)

Source: Map posted at “Arctic Region,” U.S. Department of State, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://www.state.gov/key-topics-office-of-ocean-and-polar-affairs/arctic/.

231 For a State Department fact sheet on the agreement, see “Secretary Clinton Signs the Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement with Other Arctic Nations,” May 12, 2011, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ ps/2011/05/163285.htm.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 57

Commercial Sea Transportation²³²

Background

The search for a shorter route from the Atlantic to Asia has been the quest of maritime powers since the Middle Ages. The diminishment of Arctic ice raises the possibility of saving several thousands of miles and several days of sailing between major trading blocs.²³³ If the Arctic were to become a viable shipping route, the ramifications could extend far beyond the Arctic. For example, lower shipping costs could be advantageous for China (at least its northeast region), Japan, and South Korea because their manufactured products exported to Europe or North America could become less expensive relative to other emerging manufacturing centers in Southeast Asia, such as India.²³⁴ Melting ice could potentially open up two trans-Arctic routes:²³⁵

• The Northern Sea Route (NSR, a.k.a. the “Northeast Passage”), along Russia’s northern border from Murmansk to Provideniya, is about 2,600 nautical miles in length. It was opened by the Soviet Union to domestic shipping in 1931 and to transit by foreign vessels in 1991. This route would be applicable for trade between northeast Asia (north of Singapore) and northern Europe. Most transits through the NSR are associated with the carriage of LNG from Russia’s Yamal Peninsula, and Russia is actively promoting the use of this route. The NSR accounts for the vast majority of large cargo ship transits in the Arctic.²³⁶

• The Northwest Passage (NWP) runs through the Canadian Arctic Islands. The NWP actually consists of several potential routes. The southern route is through Peel Sound in Nunavut, which has been open in recent summers and contains mostly one-year ice. However, this route is circuitous, contains some narrow channels, and is shallow enough to impose draft restrictions on ships. The more northern route, through McClure Strait from Baffin Bay to the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska, is much more direct and therefore more appealing to ocean carriers, but more prone to ice blockage.²³⁷ The NWP is potentially applicable for trade between northeast Asia (north of Shanghai) and the northeast of North America, but it is less commercially viable than the NSR.²³⁸ Cargo ship transits have been extremely rare but cruise vessel excursions and research vessels are more common.

232 This section was prepared by John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

233 Extended daylight hours in the Arctic during the summer may also be an advantage.

234 Presentation by Stephen Carmel, Senior Vice President, Maersk Line Ltd., Halifax International Security Forum, Arctic Security: The New Great Game? November 21, 2009.

235 A third but more remote possibility is a route directly over the North Pole.

236 Traffic statistics available at https://arctic-lio.com/.

237 This was the route pioneered by the SS Manhattan, an oil tanker modified for ice breaking in 1969 to carry Alaskan North Slope oil to the Atlantic. This was the first commercial passage through the NWP, but the building of the Alaskan pipeline was found to be the more economical means of transporting oil from the North Slope to the lower 48 states.

238 Although the NWP is often compared to the alternative route through the Panama Canal in terms of distance and sailing days from Asia to the U.S. east coast, another alternative to consider is the shorter and faster transcontinental rail route across Canada or the United States.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 58

Destination Traffic, Not Trans-Arctic Traffic

Most cargo ship activity currently taking place in the Arctic is to transport natural resources from the Arctic or to deliver general cargo and supplies to communities and natural resource extraction facilities. Thus, cargo ship traffic in the Arctic presently is mostly regional, not trans-Arctic.

Unpredictable Ice Conditions Hinder Trans-Arctic Shipping

Arctic waters do not necessarily have to be ice free to be open to shipping. Multiyear ice can be over 10 feet thick and problematic even for icebreakers, but one-year ice is typically 3 feet thick or less. This thinner ice can be more readily broken up by icebreakers or ice-class ships (cargo ships with reinforced hulls and other features for navigating in ice-infested waters). However, more open water in the Arctic has resulted in another potential obstacle to shipping: unpredictable ice flows. In the NWP, melting ice and the opening of waters that were once covered with one- year ice has allowed blocks of multiyear ice from farther north and icebergs from Greenland to flow into potential sea lanes. The source of this multiyear ice is not predicted to dissipate in spite of climate change. Moreover, the flow patterns of these ice blocks are very difficult to forecast.²³⁹ Thus, the lack of ice in potential sea lanes during the summer months can add even greater unpredictability to Arctic shipping. This is in addition to the extent of ice versus open water, which is also highly variable from one year to the next and seasonally.

The unpredictability of ice conditions is a major hindrance for trans-Arctic shipping in general, but can be more of a concern for some types of ships than it is for others. For instance, it would be less of a concern for cruise ships, which may have the objective of merely visiting the Arctic rather than passing through and could change their route and itinerary depending on ice conditions. On the other hand, unpredictability is of the utmost concern for container ships that carry thousands of containers from hundreds of different customers, all of whom expect to unload or load their cargo upon the ship’s arrival at various ports as indicated on the ship’s advertised schedule. The presence of even small blocks of ice or icebergs from a melting Greenland ice sheet requires slow sailing and could play havoc with schedules. Several container shipping lines and shippers have pledged not to ship through the Arctic.²⁴⁰ Ships carrying a single commodity in bulk from one port to another for just one customer have more flexibility in terms of delivery windows, but would not likely risk an Arctic passage under prevailing conditions.

Ice is not the sole impediment to Arctic shipping. The region frequently experiences adverse weather, including not only severe storms, but also intense cold, which can impair deck machinery. During the summer months when sea lanes are open, heavy fog is common in the Arctic.

Commercial ships would face higher operating costs on Arctic routes than elsewhere. Ship size is an important factor in reducing freight costs. Many ships currently used in other waters would require two icebreakers to break a path wide enough for them to sail through; ship owners could reduce that cost by using smaller vessels in the Arctic, but this would raise the cost per container or per ton of freight.²⁴¹ Also, icebreakers or ice-class cargo vessels burn more fuel than ships designed for more temperate waters and would have to sail at slower speeds. The shipping season in the Arctic only lasts for a few weeks, so icebreakers and other special required equipment

239 S.E.L. Howell and J.J. Yackel, “A Vessel Transit Assessment of Sea Ice Variability in the Western Arctic, 1969- 2002: Implications for Ship Navigation,” Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, vol. 30, no. 2, 2004.

240 Ocean Conservancy, https://oceanconservancy.org/protecting-the-arctic/take-the-pledge/.

241 “Arctic Unlikely to See Major Shipping Growth,” New Zealand Transport and Logistics Business Week, April 24, 2008.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 59

would sit idle the remainder of the year. None of these impediments by themselves may be enough to discourage Arctic passage but they do raise costs, perhaps enough to negate the savings of a shorter route. Thus, from the perspective of a shipper or a ship owner, shorter via the Arctic does not necessarily mean cheaper and faster.²⁴²

Basic Navigation Infrastructure Is Lacking

Considerable investment in navigation-related infrastructure would be required if trans-Arctic shipping were to become a reality. Channel marking buoys and other floating visual aids are not possible in Arctic waters because moving ice sheets will continuously shift their positions. Therefore, vessel captains would need to rely on marine surveys and ice charts. For some areas in the Arctic, however, these surveys and charts are out of date or not sufficiently accurate.²⁴³ To remedy this problem, aviation reconnaissance of ice conditions and satellite images would need to become readily available for ship operators.²⁴⁴ Ship-to-shore communication infrastructure would need to be installed where possible. Refueling stations may be needed, as well as, perhaps, transshipment ports where cargo could be transferred to and from ice-capable vessels at both ends of Arctic routes. Shipping lines would need to develop a larger pool of mariners with ice navigation experience. Marine insurers would need to calculate the proper level of risk premium for polar routes, which would require more detailed information about Arctic accidents and incidents in the past.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, along with the state of Alaska, has studied the feasibility of a “deep-draft” port in the Arctic (accommodating ships with a draft of about 35 feet). The northern and northwestern coastlines of Alaska are exceptionally shallow, generally limiting harbor and near-shore traffic to shallow-draft barges. Coast Guard cutters and icebreakers have drafts of 35 to 40 feet while NOAA research vessels have drafts of 16 to 28 feet, so at present these vessels are based outside the Arctic and must sail considerable distances to reach Arctic duty stations. Supply vessels supporting offshore oil rigs typically have drafts over 20 feet. A deep-draft port could serve as a base of operations for larger vessels, facilitating commercial maritime traffic in the Arctic. The study concluded that the existing harbors of Nome or Port Clarence on Alaska’s west coast may be the most suitable for deepening because of their proximity to the Bering Strait and deeper water.²⁴⁵ However, at a July 2016 hearing, the Coast Guard indicated its preferred strategy was to rely on mobile assets (vessels and aircraft) and seasonal bases of operation rather than pursue a permanent port in the Arctic.²⁴⁶ Congress has provided funds for engineering and design of the Nome project.

The U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System, a Cabinet-level committee of federal agencies with responsibilities for marine transportation, identified a list of infrastructure

242 Stephen M. Carmel, Senior Vice President, Maersk Line Ltd., “The Cold, Hard Realities of Arctic Shipping,” United States Naval Institute, Proceedings; July 2013, pp. 38-41.

243 In July and August 2010, NOAA surveyed the Bering Straits area in order to update its charts but stated that it will take more than 25 years to map the prioritized areas of navigational significance in U.S. Arctic waters. See https://web.archive.org/web/20180605213143/http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100720_fairweather.html.

244 Ice reporting that currently exists is intended for scientists not mariners.

245 Alaska Deep-Draft Arctic Port System Study, March 2013; http://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Library/ ReportsandStudies/AlaskaRegionalPortsStudy.aspx. The navigation channel at Nome presently ranges from 10 to 20 feet in depth. Much of the harbor at Port Clarence has a natural depth of 35 to 40 feet.

246 Oral testimony of Admiral Charles D. Michel, Coast Guard Vice Commandant, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Coast Guard Arctic Implementation Capabilities, July 12, 2016.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 60

improvements for Arctic navigation in a 2013 report.²⁴⁷ The report prioritizes improvements to information infrastructure (weather forecasting, nautical charting, ship tracking) and emergency response capabilities for ships in distress.

Regulation of Arctic Shipping

Due to the international nature of the shipping industry, maritime trading nations have adopted international treaties that establish standards for ocean carriers in terms of safety, pollution prevention, and security. These standards are agreed upon by shipping nations through the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations agency that first met in 1959.²⁴⁸

Key conventions that the 168 IMO member nations have adopted include the Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS), which was originally adopted in response to the Titanic disaster in 1912 but has since been revised several times; the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), which was adopted in 1973 and modified in 1978; and the Standards for Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (SCTW), which was adopted in 1978 and amended in 1995 and 2010. It is up to ratifying nations to enforce these standards. The United States is a party to these conventions, and the U.S. Coast Guard enforces them when it boards and inspects ships and crews arriving at U.S. ports and the very few ships engaged in international trade that sail under the U.S. flag.

Like the United States, most of the other major maritime trading nations lack the ability to enforce these regulations as a “flag state” because much of the world’s merchant fleet is registered under so-called “flags of convenience.” While most ship owners and operators are headquartered in major economies, they often register their ships in Panama, Liberia, the Bahamas, the Marshall Islands, Malta, and Cyprus, among other “open registries,” because these nations offer more attractive tax and employment regulatory regimes. Because of this development, most maritime trading nations enforce shipping regulations under a “port state control” regime—that is, they require compliance with these regulations as a condition of calling at their ports. The fragmented nature of ship ownership and operation can be a further hurdle to regulatory enforcement. It is common for cargo ships to be owned by one company, operated by a second company (which markets the ship’s space), and managed by a third (which may supply the crew and other services a ship requires to sail), each of which could be headquartered in different countries.

Arctic Polar Code

While SOLAS and other IMO conventions include provisions regarding the operation of ships in ice-infested waters, they were not specific to the polar regions. To supplement these requirements, a new IMO polar code went into effect on January 1, 2017.²⁴⁹ The code applies to passenger and cargo ships of 500 gross tons or more engaged in international voyages. It does not apply to fishing vessels, military vessels, pleasure yachts, or smaller cargo ships. The polar requirements are intended to improve safety and prevent pollution in the Arctic, and they include provisions on ship construction, ship equipment related to navigation, and crew training and ship operation. The code requires ships to carry fully or partially enclosed lifeboats. The code requires that the crew have training in ice navigation. Nations can enforce additional requirements on ships arriving at their ports or sailing through their coastal waters. For instance, U.S. Coast Guard regulations

247 U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System, U.S. Arctic Marine Transportation System: Overview and Priorities for Action, 2013.

248 See http://www.imo.org/ for more information.

249 https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Polar-default.aspx.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 61

largely follow IMO conventions but mandate additional requirements in some areas. U.S. coastal states can require ships calling at their ports to take additional safety and pollution prevention safeguards.²⁵⁰ Canada and Russia have additional pollution regulations for Arctic waters exceeding MARPOL. The U.S. Coast Guard has studied and has recommended a specific vessel traffic separation scheme for the Bering Strait between Alaska and Russia, which experiences over 400 transits per year, and which the IMO has approved.²⁵¹

Oil, Gas, and Mineral Exploration²⁵²

Lands and waters in the Arctic region—including U.S. lands and waters in and around Alaska— have attracted interest and presented challenges in terms of oil, gas, and mineral development. Decreases in ice extent in and around the Arctic Ocean may alter options for exploration in offshore and onshore areas across the region, for the United States and other countries. Efforts to map the margins of the U.S. outer continental shelf (OCS) and the continental shelves of other nations could impact oil, gas, and mineral exploration.

Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration

The shrinking Arctic ice cap, or conversely, the growing amount of ice-free ocean, has increased interest in exploring for offshore oil and gas in the region. Reduced sea ice means that ships towing seismic arrays can explore regions of the Arctic Ocean for longer periods of time with less risk of colliding with floating sea ice.²⁵³ Less sea ice over longer periods compared to previous decades also means that the seasonal window for offshore Arctic drilling remains open longer, increasing the opportunities for making a discovery.

In addition to the improved access to larger portions of the Arctic afforded by shrinking sea ice, interest in Arctic oil and gas was fueled by a 2008 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) appraisal of undiscovered oil and gas north of the Arctic Circle.²⁵⁴ The USGS stated that the “extensive Arctic continental shelves may constitute the geographically largest unexplored prospective area for petroleum remaining on Earth.”²⁵⁵ In the report, the USGS estimated that 90 billion barrels of oil, nearly 1,700 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids may remain to be discovered in the Arctic (including both U.S. and international resources north of the Arctic Circle).²⁵⁶ The U.S. Energy Information Administration stated in 2012 that this would constitute approximately 13% of the world’s undiscovered conventional oil resources and 30% of natural gas.²⁵⁷ In terms of U.S. resources specifically, DOI’s Bureau of Ocean Energy

250 For example, see Alaska State Legislature, HJR 19, Arctic Marine Safety Agreements; http://www.akleg.gov/basis/ Bill/Detail/30?Root=HJR%2019.

251 82 Federal Register 11935, February 27, 2017.

252 This section was prepared by Laura Comay, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division; Emma Kaboli, Analyst in Energy Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division; Caitlin Keating-Bitonti, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division; and Lexie Ryan, Analyst in Energy Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

253 A seismic array is typically a long string or streamer of geophones—acoustic devices used for recording seismic signals—towed behind a ship while the ship traverses a prospective oil and gas-bearing portion of the seafloor. The seismic signals are processed and interpreted to give a cross-section or three-dimensional image of the subsurface.

254 See USGS Fact Sheet 2008-3049, Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal: Estimates of Undiscovered Oil and Gas North of the Arctic Circle, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3049/, hereinafter referred to as “USGS 2008 Fact Sheet.”

255 USGS 2008 Fact Sheet.

256 USGS 2008 Fact Sheet, p. 1.

257 U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Today in Energy: Arctic Oil and Natural Gas Resources,” January 20, 2012, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4650.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 62

Management (BOEM) estimated in 2021 that the Alaska portions of the U.S. OCS contain undiscovered, technically recoverable resources of approximately 25 billion barrels of oil and 124 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (although not all of these resources may be economically viable to recover).²⁵⁸

Despite the warming trend in the Arctic, severe weather and sea ice continue to pose challenges to exploration. In addition, any discovery of new oil and gas deposits far from existing storage, pipelines, and shipping facilities could not be developed until infrastructure is built to extract and transport the petroleum.

Offshore of Alaska, the U.S. OCS covers more than 1 billion acres,²⁵⁹ including some areas with high oil, gas, and mineral potential. Some have expressed interest in expanding America’s oil and gas portfolio in the Alaska OCS. Currently, 2 of the 15 federal planning areas in BOEM’s Alaska region—the Beaufort Sea and Cook Inlet—contain active federal leases, and only the Beaufort Sea has producing wells (from a joint federal-state unit).²⁶⁰ In December 2023, the Secretary of the Interior approved an offshore oil and gas leasing program for 2024-2029 that contains no lease sales in the Alaska region.²⁶¹ Under the Trump Administration, BOEM had issued a draft five-year offshore oil and gas leasing program that would have scheduled lease sales in all 15 Alaska planning areas, including three sales in the Beaufort Sea and three in the Chukchi Sea, both of which lie within the ARPA-defined Arctic boundary.²⁶² The draft program did not advance further in the Trump Administration.

Offshore oil and gas activities in the region have fluctuated as industry weighs changing oil prices, development costs, and regulations. BOEM reported that, between February and November 2016, companies relinquished more than 90% of leases they had held in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea planning areas, in the midst of a slump in oil prices.²⁶³ While there were 450

258 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), “Assessment of Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of the Nation’s Outer Continental Shelf, 2021,” at https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ oil-gas-energy/resource-evaluation/2021_National_Assessment_Map_BTU.pdf. BOEM defines technically recoverable resources as “oil and gas that could be produced as a consequence of natural pressure, artificial lift, pressure maintenance, or other secondary recovery methods, but without any consideration of economic viability” (BOEM, “Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Nation’s Outer Continental Shelf, 2021,” at https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/oil-gas-energy/resource-evaluation/2021%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf).

259 This region includes some areas within the Arctic boundary as defined by the ARPA (15 U.S.C. 4111; see Figure 1), such as the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, and some areas outside that boundary, such as Cook Inlet.

260 BOEM, “BP Exploration (Alaska) (BPXA)—Northstar,” at http://www.boem.gov/About-BOEM/BOEM-Regions/ Alaska-Region/Leasing-and-Plans/Plans/BP-North-Star.aspx. There also are additional (non-federal) leases in Alaska state waters; see Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas, “Acreage by Lessee—Summary,” January 4, 2024, https://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Documents/Leasing/PeriodicReports/Lease_AcreageByLesseeSummary. pdf.

261 BOEM, 2024-2029 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Leasing: Proposed Final Program, September 2023 (approved in December 2023), https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/oil-gas-energy/leasing/2024- 2029_NationalOCSProgram_PFP_Sept_2023_Compliant.pdf. An earlier draft of the program had narrowed potential leasing in the Alaska region to the Cook Inlet planning area, which lies outside the Arctic boundary as defined by the ARPA. The final program did not include any lease sales in this area, based on “limited expressed interest of potential oil and gas producers, the lack of development on existing OCS leases, and the potential for higher environmental risks associated with new leasing in relatively undeveloped areas” (p. 7). The final program schedules leasing for the 2024- 2029 period only in the Gulf of Mexico.

262 BOEM, 2019-2024 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Draft Proposed Program, January 2018, at https://www.boem.gov/NP-Draft-Proposed-Program-2019-2024/. The draft program also included other Alaska region planning areas in addition to the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and Cook Inlet, although industry interest in these other areas may be lower, as many are thought to have relatively low or negligible petroleum potential.

263 BOEM, 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing: Proposed Final Program, November 2016, p. S- (continued...)

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 63

active leases in the Chukchi Sea planning area at the end of 2015, as of January 2024 there were none.²⁶⁴ In the Beaufort Sea, active leases dropped from 77 at the end of 2015 to 6 in January 2024.²⁶⁵ Despite these changes, recent discoveries onshore and in state waters on Alaska’s North Slope have contributed to ongoing interest in the region.

The evolving federal regulatory environment for Arctic offshore activities has been shaped by concerns about industry’s ability to respond to potential oil spills, given the region’s remoteness and harsh conditions. The section of this report on “Oil Pollution Implications of Arctic Change” discusses this issue in greater detail. In 2016, BOEM and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) released final safety regulations for Arctic exploratory drilling that include multiple requirements for companies to reduce the risks of potential oil spills—for example, the requirement that companies have a separate rig available at drill sites to drill a relief well in case of a loss of well control.²⁶⁶

Under authority provided in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, U.S. Presidents have withdrawn from leasing consideration certain Arctic Ocean areas deemed especially sensitive to the impacts of oil and gas activities.²⁶⁷ For example, leasing is prohibited in the Bristol Bay area of the North Aleutian Basin.²⁶⁸ In January 2021, President Biden indefinitely withdrew from leasing other large portions of the U.S. Arctic—including the entire Chukchi Sea planning area and almost all of the Beaufort Sea planning area—reinstating a withdrawal originally instituted by President Obama.²⁶⁹

Offshore Mineral Exploration

Seabed mineral deposits can form in seafloor environments within a country’s OCS and in areas beyond national jurisdiction in the deep sea. Volcanic activity at ocean ridges often increases the concentration of dissolved metals in the surrounding seawater. In these areas, minerals can precipitate from the seawater onto the seabed, forming mineral deposits. Polymetallic sulfide, or seafloor massive sulfide deposits commonly form at active and inactive hydrothermal vents along

3, https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/oil-and-gas-energy-program/Leasing/Five-Year-Program/2017-2022/2017- 2022-OCS-Oil-and-Gas-Leasing-PFP.pdf.

264 For 2015 data, see BOEM, “Combined Leasing Report, as of January 1, 2016,” at https://www.boem.gov/ Combined-Leasing-Reports-2016/. For January 2024 data, see BOEM, “Combined Leasing Report, as of January 1, 2024,” at https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/oil-gas-energy/leasing/Lease%20stats%201-1-24.pdf.

265 Ibid.

266 Department of the Interior, “Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf,” 81 Federal Register 46477, July 15, 2016. In December 2020, the Trump Administration published a proposed revision to the rule (85 Federal Register 79266), but in June 2021 the Biden Administration withdrew the proposed revision.

267 Section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. §1341(a)) authorizes the President to, “from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.”

268 Presidential Memorandum, “Withdrawal of Certain Portions of the United States Arctic Outer Continental Shelf from Mineral Leasing,” December 20, 2016, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/20/presidential- memorandum-withdrawal-certain-portions-united-states-arctic; hereinafter cited as “Presidential Memorandum of December 20, 2016.”

269 Executive Order 13990, Section 4(b), January 25, 2021. President Obama had withdrawn multiple parts of the Alaska OCS from leasing consideration (Executive Order 13754, December 9, 2016; and Presidential Memorandum of December 20, 2016). In April 2017, President Trump’s Executive Order 13795 modified President Obama’s withdrawals so as to open all the withdrawn areas for leasing consideration except for the North Aleutian Basin. However, in a March 2019 court decision (League of Conservation Voters v. Trump, 363 F.Supp.3d 1013 (D.Alaska 2019)), the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska vacated this provision in President Trump’s executive order. Additionally, in January 2021, President Biden’s Executive Order 13990 reinstated President Obama’s Arctic withdrawals in their original form.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 64

ocean ridges, and commonly contain copper, gold, zinc, lead, barium, and silver.²⁷⁰ Ferromanganese crusts and nodules have been observed on the Arctic seabed.²⁷¹

Non-hydrocarbon mineral deposits in waters surrounding Alaska can be divided into three general categories: deposits in shallow, coastal waters, which are generally under state mining jurisdiction; deposits in federal waters in the OCS, which are generally deeper waters and are under federal jurisdiction; and deposits in areas beyond national jurisdiction, which would be regulated by an international organization established by UNCLOS. Mining in the coastal waters surrounding Alaska is relatively common; examples include various ongoing gold mining operations in Nome and in the Norton Sound, and a barite mine on Castle Island that operated from 1966 until 1980.²⁷²

Interest in identifying potential mineral deposits in Alaska’s OCS, including in waters inside the Arctic region, has been increasing. Two potential drivers for this interest include growing demand for some minerals, and decreasing sea ice, which could lower exploration and exploitation costs. In an assessment of available geologic information, the USGS stressed caution in drawing conclusions from prior exploration efforts, noting that characterization of regions as

prospective for deep-ocean minerals in the Alaska OCS, where “prospective” indicates that a region is consistent with the geologic and oceanographic criteria required to potentially host marine minerals, ... does not mean that a region hosts marine minerals and does not indicate that the marine minerals occurring in that region will be economically viable. Sparse geologic sampling limits knowledge of marine minerals in the Alaska region, especially in deep water regions.²⁷³

BOEM, the federal agency authorized to oversee mineral leasing in the OCS, does not indicate that any entity has requested a mineral lease in Alaska’s OCS waters.²⁷⁴ According to BOEM, hydrothermal vents offshore the western Alaskan Aleutian Islands may be a potential target for certain marine minerals.²⁷⁵ Some Members of Congress have opposed deep-seabed mining, both on the U.S. OCS and in areas beyond national jurisdiction,²⁷⁶ while other Members have proposed legislation that would direct certain federal departments to support polymetallic nodule collection by allied partners as a strategy to provide alternative sources of minerals needed for U.S. industry.²⁷⁷

Norway is the first Arctic coastal state to make a decision to advance deep-seabed mining in the Arctic. In 2008, Norwegian geologists discovered a hydrothermal vent system along the Arctic

270 International Seabed Authority (ISA), “Minerals: Polymetallic Sulphides,” at https://www.isa.org.jm/index.php/ exploration-contracts/polymetallic-sulphides; International Energy Agency, “The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transition” (2022), p. 156, https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ffd2a83b-8c30-4e9d-980a-52b6d9a86fdc/ TheRoleofCriticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf; and Kathryn Miller et al., “An Overview of Seabed Mining Including the Current State of Development, Environmental Impacts, and Knowledge Gaps,” Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 4 (2018).

271 James Hein et al., “Arctic Deep Water Ferromanganese-Oxide Deposits Reflect the Unique Characteristics of the Arctic Ocean,” Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, vol. 18, (2017) pp. 3771-3800.

272 Amy Gartman, Kira Mizell, and Douglas C. Kreiner, Marine Minerals in Alaska—A Review of Coastal and Deep- Ocean Regions, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Professional Paper 1870, 2022, p. 4, https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1870 (hereinafter referred to as Gartman et al., Marine Minerals in Alaska); and USGS, “Castle Island,” at https://mrdata.usgs.gov/ardf/show-ardf.php?ardf_num=PE026.

273 Gartman et al., Marine Minerals in Alaska, pp. 4-5.

274 BOEM, “Requests and Active Leases,” at https://www.boem.gov/marine-minerals/requests-and-active-leases.

275 Zoom briefing between CRS and BOEM Marine Mineral Program, March 7, 2024.

276 See in the 118th Congress H.R. 4537 and H.R. 4536.

277 See in the 118th Congress H.R. 7636.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 65

Mid-Ocean Ridge, known as Loki’s Castle, located in Norway’s EEZ.²⁷⁸ Massive sulfide deposits have developed around the venting system.²⁷⁹ On January 9, 2024, Norway’s Parliament voted in favor of allowing commercial-scale deep-seabed mining exploration, and potential exploitation, within the country’s EEZ, between Jan Mayen Island and the Svalbard archipelago.²⁸⁰ Shortly thereafter, the European Parliament passed a resolution expressing its concerns about Norway’s decision.²⁸¹ Citing the potential ecological damage of seabed mining, the European Parliament has supported an international moratorium on deep-seabed mining.²⁸²

In areas beyond national jurisdiction in the Arctic Ocean, the International Seabed Authority (ISA), an organization established under UNCLOS, has the authority to issue seabed mining exploration and exploitation contracts to companies sponsored by countries party to UNCLOS.²⁸³ Exploration and commercial recovery of seabed minerals occurring in areas beyond national jurisdiction in the Arctic would not be limited to Arctic countries. As of February 2024, the ISA had issued no contracts for seabed mining activities in the Arctic Ocean.²⁸⁴

In the Arctic Ocean, USGS scientists have identified high concentrations of critical minerals in seafloor deposits sampled more than 300 nautical miles north of Alaska.²⁸⁵ These USGS- identified resources fall beyond current U.S. jurisdiction. In general, a coastal country’s sovereign rights over natural resources of the seafloor, subsoil, and overlying water column extends 200 nautical miles seaward of its coastline.²⁸⁶ However, Arctic coastal nations, including the United States, have pursued ocean mapping efforts to extend the outer limits of their continental shelves in the Arctic Ocean in accordance with UNCLOS (see “Extent of the Continental Margin,” below).

278 Rolf B. Pedersen et al., “Discovery of a Black Smoker Vent Field and Vent Fauna at the Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge,” Nature Communications, vol. 1, no. 126 (2010).

279 Ibid.

280 Norway’s proposed area for seabed mining contains an estimated 280,000 square kilometers (82,000 square nautical miles). Victoria Klesty, “Norway Parliament Votes in Favour of Seabed Mining, as Expected,” Reuters, January 9, 2024, https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/norway-parliament-votes-favour-seabed-mining-expected-2024- 01-09/.

281 European Parliament, “Motion for a Resolution on Norway’s Recent Decision to Advance Seabed Mining in the Arctic,” 2024/2520(RSP), January 31, 2024, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-9-2024- 0095_EN.html.

282 The official stance of the European Parliament is not strictly representative of the positions taken by all European Union members. European Parliament, “European Parliament resolution of 3 May 2022 Toward a Sustainable Blue Economy in the EU: The Role of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sectors,” 2021/2188(INI), May 3, 2022, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2022-0135_EN.html.

283 UNCLOS, Article 156. For more information on the International Seabed Authority, see CRS Report R47324, Seabed Mining in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction: Issues for Congress, by Caitlin Keating-Bitonti.

284 ISA, “Exploration Contracts,” at https://www.isa.org.jm/exploration-contracts.

285 USGS, “Delineating the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf,” September 23, 2022, https://www.usgs.gov/programs/ cmhrp/science/delineating-us-extended-continental-shelf; and USGA, “Critical Minerals in the EEZ,” June 5, 2020, https://www.usgs.gov/news/featured-story/critical-minerals-eez.

286 UNCLOS, Articles 56 and 77.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 66

Extent of the Continental Margin²⁸⁷

A strategic objective of the 2022 National Strategy for the Arctic Region is for the United States to “delineate the outer limits of the U.S. continental shelf in accordance with international law.”²⁸⁸ This area of the continental shelf, beyond the limits of the 200-nautical-mile EEZ, is known as the extended continental shelf (ECS).²⁸⁹ A coastal nation with an established ECS can exercise sovereign rights over the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil in this area, but not the overlying water column. Since 2003, the U.S. Department of State, the NOAA, and USGS have worked together to collect geological and geophysical data required to map potential U.S. ECS areas through the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Project, a federal initiative with the aim to delineate the full extent of the U.S. ECS.²⁹⁰

On December 19, 2023, the U.S. Department of State announced the outer limits of the U.S. ECS (Figure 7).²⁹¹ The declared total U.S. ECS would be approximately 288,000 square nautical miles (987,700 square kilometers),²⁹² roughly 8% of the seafloor area beneath the U.S. EEZ.²⁹³ The U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Project identified 151,700 square nautical miles (520,400 square kilometers) of the U.S. ECS in the Arctic that the United States claims to be a prolongation of the land mass of Alaska.²⁹⁴ The U.S. ECS in the Arctic represents 53% of the total U.S. ECS. Much of the data to delineate the ECS in the Arctic Ocean for the United States and Canada was collected in a two-ship operation involving the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy and the Canadian Coast Guard ship Louis S. Saint Laurent.²⁹⁵

According to the U.S. Department of State, upon U.S. accession to UNCLOS, the United States will be ready to file its submission package with the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), an independent entity created under UNCLOS that consists of 21 experts in geology, geophysics, or hydrography.²⁹⁶ Under Article 76 of UNCLOS, a coastal country can file a submission to the CLCS concerning the extent of its continental shelf.²⁹⁷ In addition, the provisions set forth under Article 76 describe the geological and geophysical characteristics of the

287 The continental margin comprises the submerged prolongation of the land mass of the coastal country and consists of the seabed and subsoil of the continental shelf, the slope, and the rise (UNCLOS, Article 76(3)). The continental shelf of a coastal country comprises the seabed and the subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea (the area 12 nautical miles seaward of the coastline) throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles (UNCLOS, Article 76(1)).

288 See Strategic Objective 4.2 in White House, National Strategy for the Arctic Region, October 2022, p. 14.

289 For more information on the U.S. extended continental shelf, see CRS Report R47912, Outer Limits of the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf: Background and Issues for Congress, by Caitlin Keating-Bitonti.

290 U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Project: About the U.S. ECS Project,” https://www.state.gov/about-the-us-ecs-project/.

291 U.S. Department of State, “Announcement of U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Outer Limits: Fact Sheet,” December 19, 2023, https://www.state.gov/announcement-of-u-s-extended-continental-shelf-outer-limits-2/.

292 U.S. Department of State, U.S. ECS Executive Summary, p. 9.

293 The U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) contains 3.4 million square nautical miles. NOAA, “The United States Is an Ocean Nation,” https://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/2011/012711_gcil_maritime_eez_map.pdf.

294 U.S. Department of State, U.S. ECS Executive Summary, pp. 9 and 15.

295 U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Project: Data Collection,” https://www.state.gov/data- collection-us-ecs-project/.

296 U.S. Department of State, U.S. ECS Executive Summary, p. 6. The 21 members of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) serve in a personal capacity. For a list of members and their nationalities, see United Nations, “Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS): Members of the Commissions,” https://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/commission_members.htm.

297 UNCLOS, Article 76, paragraph 8. Annex II of UNCLOS addresses the CLCS.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 67

seabed and subsoil that are used to delineate the outer limits of the ECS.²⁹⁸ The CLCS does not approve or grant an ECS to coastal countries but makes recommendations to countries on the location of their ECS limits based on the scientific evidence they submit. The limits of the ECS established by a coastal country on the basis of the CLCS recommendations are “final and binding.”²⁹⁹

Figure 7. Seven Regions of the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf

(As determined by the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Project)

Source: U.S. Department of State, “The U.S. ECS,” December 19, 2023, https://www.state.gov/the-us-ecs/. Notes: Areas of the U.S. extended continental shelf (ECS) identified by the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Project, a federal initiative that aims to establish the full extent of the U.S. ECS according to international law (i.e., in alignment with Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea). Red lines represent the outer limits of the U.S. ECS, and red shaded areas delineate the U.S. ECS beyond the 200 nautical mile limit of the continental shelf (thin dark lines), representing 288,000 square nautical miles (987,700 square kilometers). Portions of the U.S. ECS are bounded by previously established maritime boundaries with neighboring countries

298 UNCLOS, Article 76, paragraphs 4 and 5 contain two formulas and two constraint lines that can be applied in any combination to determine the outer limits of the ECS. For more information, see CRS Report R47324, Seabed Mining in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction: Issues for Congress, by Caitlin Keating-Bitonti, and U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Project: Data Collection,” at https://www.state.gov/data-collection-us-ecs-project/.

299 UNCLOS, Article 76, paragraph 8.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 68

(i.e., Cuba, Mexico, and Russia). Other portions may overlap with ECS areas of other neighboring countries (i.e., the Bahamas, Canada, and Japan).

The U.S. Department of State also said the United States is open to filing its submission to the CLCS as a nonparty to UNCLOS.³⁰⁰ It remains unclear if the CLCS would consider a U.S. submission in these circumstances.³⁰¹ Further, it remains unclear how the international community would respond to such a U.S. submission. One source reports objections from Russia, with a member of the Russian Federation Council quoted as saying, “The Americans act without any international legal basis at all, which means the international community has every right not to recognize new borders.”³⁰² A second source quoted a lawmaker who heads the Russian parliament’s Arctic committee as stating, “The unilateral expansion of boarders in the Arctic is unacceptable and can only lead to increased tensions,” in reference to the U.S. ECS announcement.³⁰³ According to the U.S. Department of State, “The United States has been, is, and will be engaged in consultations and negotiations with governments of neighboring countries concerning the delimitation of areas subject to the respective jurisdiction of the United States and of these countries.”³⁰⁴

In the Arctic Ocean, portions of the U.S. ECS are bounded by Canada to the east and Russia to the west.³⁰⁵ The United States and Canada do not have a maritime boundary agreement in the Arctic. However, according to the U.S. Department of State, “Canada has advised the United States that it would not object to the consideration of a U.S. submission by the [CLCS], without prejudice both to the delineation of the outer limits of its own continental shelf and to the matters relating to the delimitation of boundaries in this region between the United States and Canada.”³⁰⁶ In 1990, Russia (then the Soviet Union) and the United States agreed to a maritime boundary to address overlapping maritime zones in the Arctic (i.e., EEZ and ECS).³⁰⁷ To date, Russia has not asserted ECS claims in any areas that might be considered part of the U.S. ECS. Disputes over maritime boundaries, including those with overlapping ECS, must be resolved between the countries involved in the disagreement. The CLCS has no mandate to establish boundaries or resolve disputes and cannot prejudice the resolution of boundary disputes.

300 U.S. Department of State, U.S. ECS Executive Summary, p. 6.

301 For example, see James Kraska, “Strategic Implication of the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf,” Wilson Center, December 19, 2023, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/strategic-implication-us-extended-continental-shelf.

302 James Brooke, “Echoing Trump’s Offer to Buy Greenland, America Quietly Doubles Its Claim to Arctic Seabed,” New York Sun, January 4, 2024, https://www.nysun.com/article/echoing-trumps-offer-to-buy-greenland-america- quietly-doubles-its-claim-to-arctic-seabed.

303 Mike Eckel et al., “Under Sea, Under Stone: How the U.S. Claimed Vast New Arctic Territory–In An Unusual Way,” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, January, 26, 2024, https://www.rferl.org/a/arctic-sea-claims-interactive- map/32793427.html.

304 U.S. Department of State, “Continental Shelf and Maritime Boundaries; Notice of Limits,” 88 Federal Register 88470, December 21, 2023.

305 U.S. Department of State, U.S. ECS Executive Summary, p. 15.

306 Ibid., p. 19, and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, “Canada Pledges to Work with U.S. Over Competing Claims to Arctic Sea Floor,” January 3, 2024, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/canada-work-with-us-artic-sea-floor- claims-1.7073547.

307 The Senate gave advice and consent to ratify the maritime boundary agreement in 1991 (U.S. Congress, Senate, The Agreement Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Maritime Boundary, with Annex, Signed at Washington, June 1, 1990, 101^st Cong., 2^nd sess., September 26, 1990, Treaty Doc. 101-22). The Russian Duma has not approved the maritime boundary agreement. Both countries appear to continue to provisionally apply the boundary agreement. See Lawfare, “An Off-the-Shelf Guide to Extended Continental Shelves and the Arctic,” April 21, 2021, https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/shelf-guide-extended-continental-shelves-and- arctic.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 69

Other Arctic coastal countries have collected geological and geophysical data to delineate the outer limits of their ECSs in the region. All Arctic coastal countries except for the United States, which is a nonparty to UNCLOS, have filed submissions to the CLCS for an ECS in the Arctic.³⁰⁸ Some experts contend that given the long queue of countries waiting for the CLCS to issue recommendations, the delineation of ECS areas in the Arctic could likely take a decade or more.³⁰⁹ The CLCS provided its first favorable recommendations to Norway in 2009, just over two years after Norway filed its submission for an ECS in the Arctic.³¹⁰ Iceland, though not an Arctic coastal country, filed a submission regarding an ECS in the vicinity of the Arctic Circle in 2009 and received a favorable recommendation from the CLCS in 2016.³¹¹ Denmark filed two submissions in 2013 and 2014, and in 2019, Canada filed a submission to the CLCS.³¹² Canada’s submission includes potentially overlapping areas with the United States’ continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean. Through regular consultations, the United States does not object to the consideration of Canada’s submission on the Arctic Ocean.³¹³ As of February 2024, Denmark and Canada are still waiting for their respective Arctic submissions to be considered by the CLCS.

Russia was the first country to file a submission for an ECS with the CLCS in 2001.³¹⁴ Russia’s initial submission to the CLCS included the Lomonosov Ridge and demonstrated its bid to extend political activities and potentially establish security infrastructure in Arctic regions.³¹⁵ The CLCS found the Russian Federation’s 2001 submission to have insufficient scientific evidence.³¹⁶ In 2015, the Russian Federation presented to the CLCS a revised submission that included not only the Lomonosov Ridge but also the Mendeleev Rise and the Podvodnikov Basin.³¹⁷ In late March 2021, the Russian Federation submitted two addenda to its 2015 revised submission, presenting evidence for the Gakkel Ridge and the Nansen and Amundsen Basins to be components of the

308 United Nations, Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, “Submissions, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, pursuant to article 76, paragraph 8, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982,” updated October 30, 2023, https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm (hereinafter referred to as United Nations, “Submissions to the CLCS”).

309 For example, Andrey Todorov, “Russia’s Arctic Shelf Bid and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Explained,” March 2, 2023, https://sites.tufts.edu/fletcherrussia/russias-arctic-shelf-bid-and-the-commission-on- the-limits-of-the-continental-shelf-explained/; and Bjørn Kunoy, “Recommendations on the Russian Federation’s Proposed Outer Continental Shelf in the Arctic Area,” EJIL:Talk!, March 3, 2023, https://www.ejiltalk.org/recommendations-on-the-russian-federations-proposed-outer-continental-shelf-in-the-arctic- area/.

310 Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), Statement by the Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on the Progress of Work in the Commission, CLCS/62, New York, March 2-April 9, 2009, https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n09/307/58/pdf/n0930758.pdf?token=yeIjuddPE4866Nk46N&fe=true.

311 CLCS, Progress of Work in the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, CLCS/93, New York, February 1-March 18, 2016, https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n16/108/88/pdf/n1610888.pdf?token=1XBBE2RKE504FJewpD&fe=true.

312 See United Nations, “Submissions to the CLCS.”

313 See United States Mission to the United Nations, “Receipt of the Partial Submission Made by Canada to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf,” August 28, 2019, https://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/ submissions_files/can1_84_2019/2019_08_28_USA_NV_UN_001.pdf.

314 United Nations, “Commission on Limits of Continental Shelf Receives its First Submission,” press release, SEA/1729, December 21, 2001, https://press.un.org/en/2001/sea1729.doc.htm.

315 CLCS, “Submission to the Commission: Submission by the Russia Federation,” updated on June 30, 2009, https://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_rus.htm.

316 Several other nations objected to Russia’s submission due to a lack of scientific evidence. Ibid.

317 CLCS, Partial Revised Submission of the Russian Federation to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in Respect of the Continental Shelf of the Russian Federation in the Arctic Ocean, 2015, http://www.un.org/ Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/rus01_rev15/2015_08_03_Exec_Summary_English.pdf.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 70

extended Russian continental shelf.³¹⁸ The United States communicated no objections to the CLCS regarding Russia’s 2015 revised submission and 2021 addenda.³¹⁹ On February 6, 2023, the CLCS issued favorable recommendations to Russia regarding its submission related to the Mendeleev Rise, Podvodnikov Basin, Lomonosov Ridge, and surrounding areas.³²⁰ Russia accepted these recommendations. The CLCS, however, rejected Russia’s submission related to the Gakkel Ridge due to insufficient documentation of morphological continuity with the Russian continental shelf.³²¹ Russia has since submitted additional evidence for the Gakkel Ridge.³²² As of February 2024, the CLCS has not provided a follow up recommendation for the Gakkel Ridge. In total, Russia’s ECS submission would capture approximately 70% of the Arctic Ocean beyond its EEZ.³²³

The delineation of ECSs in the Arctic Ocean could signal to non-Arctic states (e.g., China)³²⁴ that existing and potential Arctic resources are under the legal jurisdiction of the five Arctic coastal nations.³²⁵ Because an ECS falls under national jurisdiction, the management, exploration, and exploitation of natural resources (e.g., minerals) on the ECS seafloor would be subject to domestic regulations. An established ECS would prohibit countries from pursuing exploration or exploitation contracts through the ISA for areas located within another country’s ECS.

Onshore Energy and Mineral Development

Alaska generally, including some areas within the Arctic region, is known to contain economically viable onshore deposits of oil, gas, and minerals. A warming Arctic means new opportunities and challenges for energy and mineral exploration and development onshore.

318 CLCS, Addendum to the Partial Revised Submission of the Russian Federation to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in the Area of the Gakkel Ridge, Nansen and Amundsen Basins, Executive Summary, 2021, https://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/rus01_rev15/ Addendum_1_2021_Executive_Summary_Gakkel_Ridge_English.pdf.

319 U.S. Mission to the United Nations, “Receipt of the Partial Revised Submission made by the Russian Federation to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf,” October 30, 2015, https://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/ submissions_files/rus01_rev15/2015_11_02_US_NV_RUS_001_en.pdf; and CLCS, Recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in Regard to the Partial Revision Submission Made by the Russian Federation in Respect of the Arctic Ocean on 3 August 2015 with Addenda Submitted on 31 March 2021, approved by the Commission, with amendments, on February 6, 2023, p. 4, https://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/rus01_rev15/2023RusRev1RecSum.pdf (hereafter referred to as CLCS, Recommendations to the Russian Federation in Respect to the Arctic Ocean, February 6, 2023).

320 CLCS, Recommendations to the Russian Federation in Respect to the Arctic Ocean, February 6, 2023, pp. i-63.

321 Ibid., p. 24.

322 United Nations, “Submissions to the CLCS.”

323 Martin Breum, “Russia Extends Its Claim to the Arctic Ocean Seabed,” ArcticToday, April 4, 2021, https://www.arctictoday.com/russia-extends-its-claim-to-the-arctic-ocean-seabed/?wallit_nosession=1.

324 In 2018, China released its national Arctic policy. In the national Arctic policy, China stated, “China is an important stakeholder in Arctic affairs” and declared China a “near-Arctic State.” The People’s Republic of China, China’s Arctic Policy, January 2018, https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/white_paper/2018/01/26/content_281476026660336.htm. In recent years, China’s polar icebreakers have collected geological and geophysical data in the Arctic Ocean, and China has invested in several infrastructure projects in the region (e.g., RAND Cooperation, “What Does China’s Arctic Presence Mean to the United States?,” December 29, 2022, https://www.rand.org/pubs/articles/2022/what-does-chinas- arctic-presence-mean-to-the-us.html; and Modern Diplomacy, “U.S. Military May Not Be Ready for Arctic Competition,” December 28, 2023, https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/12/28/u-s-military-may-not-be-ready-for-arctic- competition/).

325 For example, Abbie Tingstad, “The US Is Taking an Important, but Imperfect Step in Initiating Extended Continental Shelf Claims – What Are the Implications for the Arctic?,” Wilson Center, December 19, 2023, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/us-taking-important-imperfect-step-initiating-extended-continental-shelf-claims- what-are.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 71

Longer summers could extend exploration seasons for areas that are only accessible for ground surveys during the warmer months. Such impacts could be felt on existing energy developments, including the Willow Project and producing oil and gas fields,³²⁶ and on existing mineral operations in the Arctic, producing gold, silver, zinc, lead, and construction aggregates.³²⁷ In addition to existing mineral operations, development of resources of critical minerals for growing technology sectors such as lithium, cobalt, rare earth elements, and graphite may provide a new source of the key materials needed for energy and technology advances. Prospective exploration and development, including potential future energy developments on the 1.6-million-acre Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)³²⁸ and the central North Slope in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NRP-A), could be expanded by a warming Arctic.³²⁹

The cost of transportation is one key factor among many that affect the economic viability of onshore energy or mineral development. Generally, onshore developments in temperate climates can be accessed by permanent roads to deliver machinery and supplies, and to transport the product to market. In contrast, the rugged terrain and harsh climate in parts of the Arctic may preclude access to onshore energy or mineral development by permanent roads and require the use of sea transport and seasonal roads. These types of transportation methods may be accessible only during certain times during the year and may also be more costly to maintain and use compared to permanent roads in more temperate climates.

Current infrastructure in the Arctic that supports energy and mineral development includes the construction and use of ice roads and bridges, which are built and used only during the season when temperatures fall and remain below a threshold. As temperatures rise in the warmer months, the roads weaken, ultimately to a point at which they can no longer be used. The months during which ice roads and bridges are accessible is referred to as the ice road transport season. The warming trend in the Arctic is shortening the ice road transport season, creating challenges to transporting machinery, supplies, and product to and from the development sites. To offset the effects of warming temperatures on ice roads and bridges, developers employ technologies and road construction strategies that extend the ice road season.³³⁰ Such technologies may also impose an additional cost on developers.

In some parts of the Arctic, where ice, gravel, and paved roads are not feasible, less sea ice could allow ships to transport heavy equipment to remote locations, and to transport ore from mines to markets. Such potential improvements in access would be limited by the onshore development’s proximity to a suitable sea harbor where a port could be established.

Another factor that could affect onshore energy and mineral developments is the thawing of the permafrost. Permafrost, which is ground, soil, rock, or other material that remains frozen from year to year, has historically served as a solid foundation base for infrastructure, including roads. Permafrost underlies most of the producing oil and gas fields in Arctic Alaska, as well as the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which transports oil through the central North Slope. Thawing permafrost creates many challenges, as roads, buildings, pipelines, drill pads, and other infrastructure can

326 CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10943, The Willow Project: History and Litigation, by Adam Vann.

327 USGS Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2022, 2022, pp. 10-16, https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2022.

328 CRS In Focus IF12006, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Status of Oil and Gas Program, by Laura B. Comay, and CRS Report RL33872, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): An Overview, by Laura B. Comay, Michael Ratner, and R. Eliot Crafton.

329 USGS, Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources in the Central North Slope of Alaska, 2020, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3133/fs20203001; USGS, Assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources in the Cretaceous Nanushuk and Torok Formations, Alaska North Slope, and summary of resource potential of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, 2017, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3133/fs20173088.

330 See NOAA, “Arctic Change,” at https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic-zone/detect/land-road.shtml.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 72

become unstable and collapse. These changes can result in higher costs to onshore energy and mineral developments, potentially requiring refreezing measures, leading existing developments to close, or rendering new projects unfeasible to pursue.

Oil Pollution and Pollution Response³³¹

Oil Pollution Implications of Arctic Change

Climate change impacts in the Arctic, particularly the decline of sea ice and retreating glaciers, has led to increased human activities in the region, some of which have the potential to create oil pollution.³³² A primary concern is the threat of a large oil spill in the area. Although a major oil spill has not occurred in the Arctic, potential economic activity, such as tourism (cruise ships), oil and gas exploration, and cargo transportation, increases the risk of oil pollution (and other kinds of pollution) in the Arctic.³³³ Significant spills in high northern latitudes (e.g., the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill on the southern coast of Alaska and spills in the North Sea) suggest that the “potential impacts of an Arctic spill are likely to be severe for Arctic species and ecosystems.”³³⁴

Risk of Oil Pollution in the Arctic

A primary factor determining the risk of oil pollution in the Arctic is the level and type of human activity conducted in the region. Although changes to the Arctic climate are expected to increase access to natural resources and shipping lanes, the region will continue to present logistical challenges that may hinder human activity in the region. For example, unpredictable ice conditions may discourage trans-Arctic shipping. If trans-Arctic shipping were to occur frequently, it would likely represent a considerable portion of the overall oil pollution risk in the region. In recent decades, many of the world’s largest oil spills have been from oil tankers, which can carry millions of gallons of oil.³³⁵

Offshore oil exploration and extraction activities in the Arctic may present a risk of oil pollution. Interest in these activities in the region has fluctuated in recent years. Historically, oil well blowouts from offshore oil operations have been a source of major oil spills, eclipsing the largest tanker spills. The largest unintentional oil spill in recent history was from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico.³³⁶ During that incident, the uncontrolled well released (over an 87-day period) approximately 200 million gallons of crude oil.³³⁷ The second-largest

331 This section was prepared by Jonathan L. Ramseur, Specialist in Environmental Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

332 For further discussion of issues relating to oil spills in general, see CRS Report RL33705, Oil Spills: Background and Governance.

333 Arctic Council, Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response Working Group, Guide to Oil Spill Response in Snow and Ice Conditions, 2015, at https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/403; see also Brian Dunn, “Report on 12^th Arctic Shipping Summit, Montreal, February 21-22,” Canadian Sailings, March 12, 2018, pp. 34-36.

334 Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Arctic Oil and Gas 2007, 2008.

335 For example, the Exxon Valdez spilled approximately 11 million gallons of oil, but its carrying capacity was approximately 60 million gallons.

336 Larger oil spills occurred during the 1991 Iraq War, but many of those spills were deliberate. A 1910-1911 onshore oil blowout in the California San Joaquin Valley is reported to have spilled 9.4 million barrels of crude oil (almost 400 million gallons).

337 An estimated 17% of this oil did not enter the Gulf environment but was directly recovered from the wellhead by the responsible party (British Petroleum, BP). See the Federal Interagency Solutions Group, Oil Budget Calculator Science and Engineering Team, Oil Budget Calculator: Deepwater Horizon-Technical Documentation, November 2010; and CRS Report R42942, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Recent Activities and Ongoing Developments.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 73

unintentional oil spill in recent history—the IXTOC I, estimated at 140 million gallons—was due to an oil well blowout in Mexican Gulf Coast waters in 1979.³³⁸

Until the 2010 Deepwater Horizon incident, the spill record for offshore platforms in U.S. federal waters had shown improvement from prior years.³³⁹ A 2003 National Research Council (NRC) study of oil and gas activities on Alaska’s North Slope stated “blowouts that result in large spills are unlikely.”³⁴⁰ Similar conclusions were made in federal agency documents regarding deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico before the 2010 Deepwater Horizon event.³⁴¹ Some would likely contend that the underlying analyses behind these conclusions should be adjusted to account for the 2010 Gulf oil spill. However, others may argue that any activities in U.S. Arctic waters present less risk of an oil well blowout than was encountered by the Deepwater Horizon drill rig, because the proposed U.S. Arctic operations would be in shallower waters (150 feet) than the deepwater well (approximately 5,000 feet) that was involved in the 2010 Gulf oil spill. In addition, some have pointed out that the pressures in the Chukchi Sea would be two to three times less than they were in the well involved in the 2010 Gulf oil spill.³⁴² Regardless of these differences, even under the most stringent control systems, oil exploration and extraction activities would present some level of oil spill risk in the region, as some accidents are likely to occur from equipment failure or human error. In addition, as discussed below, an oil spill in the Arctic would present unique response and cleanup challenges.

Potential Impacts

No oil spill is entirely benign. Even a relatively minor spill, depending on the timing and location, can cause significant harm to individual organisms and entire populations. Regarding aquatic spills, marine mammals, birds, bottom-dwelling and intertidal species, and organisms in early developmental stages—eggs or larvae—are especially vulnerable. However, the effects of oil spills can vary greatly. Oil spills can cause impacts over a range of timescales, from only a few days to several years, or even decades in some cases.

Conditions in the Arctic may have implications for oil spill impacts that are less understood than in the more temperate regions.³⁴³ According to a 2016 study, “oil spill science in ice-covered waters is at an ad hoc level.”³⁴⁴ For example, information on the long-term effects of oil and its environmental persistence within the Arctic is limited.³⁴⁵ In addition, the historical data for the

338 National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies of Science, Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects, 2003.

339 See CRS Report RL33705, Oil Spills: Background and Governance; and Dagmar Etkin (Environmental Research Consulting), Analysis of U.S. Oil Spillage, Prepared for American Petroleum Institute, August 2009.

340 National Research Council of the National Academies of Science, Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska’s North Slope, 2003.

341 See, for example, Minerals Management Service (MMS), Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2007-2012, Final Environmental Impact Statement, 2007, chapter 4; MMS, Proposed Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale 206, Central Planning Area, Environmental Assessment, 2007.

342 Letter from Marvin E. Odum, President, Shell Oil Company to S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, Minerals Management Service (May 14, 2010). Cited in a staff paper from the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling (“The Challenges of Oil Spill Response in the Arctic,” 2011).

343 National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies of Science, Responding to Oil Spills in the U.S. Arctic Marine Environment, 2014 (hereinafter, NRC Report, 2014).

344 Mawuli Afenyo, “A State-of-the-Art Review of Fate and Transport of Oil Spills in Open and Ice-Covered Water,” Ocean Engineering, 2016.

345 NRC Report, 2014.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 74

region do not provide reliable baselines to assess current environmental or ecosystem states,³⁴⁶ presenting challenges to those tasked with measuring impacts. These measurement challenges are exacerbated by several factors, including the “rapid rates of climate change” in the region.³⁴⁷

Response and Cleanup Challenges in the Arctic

Conditions in the Arctic impose unique challenges for personnel charged with (1) oil spill response, which is the process of getting people and equipment to the incident, and (2) cleanup duties, either recovering the spilled oil or mitigating the contamination so that it poses less harm to the ecosystem. These challenges may play a role in policy development for economic activities in the Arctic.

Spill Response Challenges

Response time is a critical factor for oil spill recovery. With each hour, spilled oil becomes more difficult to track, contain, and recover, particularly in icy conditions, where oil can migrate under or mix with surrounding ice.³⁴⁸ Most response techniques call for quick action, which may pose logistical challenges in areas without prior staging equipment or trained response professionals. Many stakeholders are concerned about a “response gap” for oil spills in the Arctic.³⁴⁹ A response gap is a period of time in which oil spill response activities would be unsafe or infeasible. A 2016 study (prepared for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement) estimated response gaps for two locations in the U.S. Beaufort and Chukchi Seas during the summer and winter seasons, and for the year overall.³⁵⁰ The study found that during the summer months (July- October), open water oil recovery would not be “favorable” approximately 33% of the time.³⁵¹ By comparison, that estimate increases to 75% and 95% for the year overall and for the winter months (November-June), respectively. The response gap for the northern Arctic latitudes is likely to be extremely high compared to other regions.³⁵²

In the event of an oil spill, the Coast Guard has response authority in the coastal zone.³⁵³ A Coast Guard official would serve as the On-Scene Coordinator with the authority to perform cleanup immediately using federal resources, monitor the response efforts of the spiller, or direct the spiller’s cleanup activities. According to a 2014 National Research Council (NRC) report, “the lack of infrastructure in the Arctic would be a significant liability in the event of a large oil

346 Ibid.

347 NRC Report, 2014, p. 58.

348 World Wildlife Fund, Oil Spill: Response Challenges in Arctic Waters (2007).

349 Coastal Response Research Center, Opening the Arctic Seas: Envisioning Disasters and Framing Solutions (2009), partnership between the NOAA and the University of New Hampshire.

350 Nuka Research and Planning Group, Estimating an Oil Spill Response Gap for the U.S. Arctic Ocean, 2016; study funded by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.

351 A 2017 study stated that most of the marine activities in the Arctic region occur during the summer months. See Jeremy Wilkinson et al., “Oil Spill Response Capabilities and Technologies for Ice-Covered Arctic Marine Waters: A Review of Recent Developments and Established Practices,” Ambio, 2017.

352 A 2007 estimate of Prince William Sound (PWS) also may be instructive. A 2007 study found a response gap for PWS of 38% for the time of the study period (65% during the winter season). Note that PWS has existing infrastructure for response, while the more remote Arctic areas do not. Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC, Response Gap Estimate for Two Operating Areas in Prince William Sound, Alaska (2007), Report to Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council.

353 For more details, see CRS Report RL33705, Oil Spills: Background and Governance.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 75

spill.”³⁵⁴ The logistics in the Arctic were described as a “tyranny of distance” by the Vice Commandant of the Coast Guard.³⁵⁵

The Coast Guard has no designated air stations north of Kodiak, AK, which is almost 1,000 miles from the northernmost point of land along the Alaskan coast in Point Barrow, AK.³⁵⁶ Although some of the communities have airstrips capable of landing cargo planes, no roads connect these Arctic communities to the main highway systems or large communities in Alaska.³⁵⁷ Vessel infrastructure is also limited. The nearest major port is in the Aleutian Islands, approximately 1,300 miles from Point Barrow.

A 2010 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report identified further logistical obstacles that would hinder an oil spill response in the region, including “inadequate” ocean and weather information for the Arctic and technological problems with communications.³⁵⁸ A 2014 GAO report highlighted steps taken by some groups (e.g., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) to improve some of these logistical elements.³⁵⁹ The U.S. Coast Guard includes an initiative to “strengthen marine environmental response in the Arctic” as part of its 2015 Arctic Strategy Implementation Plan.³⁶⁰ A 2016 GAO Report provided an initial assessment of these efforts.³⁶¹ In 2019, the Coast Guard issued its Arctic Strategic Outlook, which stated one of its objectives was to “enhance capability to operate effectively in a dynamic Arctic.”³⁶²

In addition, the Department of the Interior’s BOEM and BSEE issued a final rule in 2016 requiring certain safety measures for drilling operations in the Arctic, but, as discussed above, the status of that rulemaking is uncertain.³⁶³

The costs of an oil spill response would likely be significantly higher than a similar incident in lower latitude locations of comparable remoteness. This could place a relatively larger burden on the oil spill liability and compensation framework.³⁶⁴ Pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act (OPA),³⁶⁵ parties responsible for an oil spill may be liable for cleanup costs, natural resource damages, and specific economic damages.³⁶⁶ OPA provided both limited defenses from liability and conditional

354 NRC Report, 2014.

355 Admiral Ray Charles, Vice Commandant of the Coast Guard, Testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, December 12, 2019, https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2019/12/expanding- opportunities-challenges-and-threats-in-the-arctic-a-focus-on-the-u-s-coast-guard-arctic-strategic-outlook.

356 G.M. Sulmasy and A.P. Wood, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, “U.S. Coast Guard Activity in the Arctic Region,” Law of the Sea Institute, Occasional Paper #6, 2014; and U.S. Coast Guard, Report to Congress: U.S. Coast Guard Polar Operations, 2008.

357 NRC Report, 2014.

358 Government Accountability Office, Coast Guard: Efforts to Identify Arctic Requirements Are Ongoing, but More Communication about Agency Planning Efforts Would Be Beneficial, GAO-10-870, 2010.

359 Government Accountability Office, Key Issues Related to Commercial Activity in the U.S. Arctic over the Next Decade, GAO-14-299, 2014.

360 U.S. Coast Guard, Arctic Strategy Implementation Plan, 2015, https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/ DCO%20Documents/5pw/Arctic%20Policy/CGAS%20IPlan%20Final%20Signed.pdf?ver=2017-08-25-075935-927.

361 Government Accountability Office, Arctic Strategy Is Underway, but Agency Could Better Assess How Its Actions Mitigate Known Arctic Capability Gaps, GAO-16-453, 2016.

362 U.S. Coast Guard, Arctic Strategic Outlook, 2019, https://www.uscg.mil/Portals/0/Images/arctic/ Arctic_Strategic_Outlook_APR_2019.pdf.

363 See the section above titled “Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration.”

364 For more information on this framework, see CRS Report RL33705, Oil Spills: Background and Governance.

365 P.L. 101-380, primarily codified at 33 U.S.C. §2701 et seq.

366 33 U.S.C. §2702.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 76

liability limits for cleanup costs and other eligible damages.³⁶⁷ The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) provides an immediate source of funds for federal responses to oil spills and compensation for certain damages.³⁶⁸ The OSLTF can be used if a responsible party’s liability limit is reached, but the fund can only provide $1 billion per incident.³⁶⁹

Oil Spill Cleanup Challenges

The history of oil spill response in the Aleutian Islands highlights the challenges and concerns for potential spills in the Arctic:

The past 20 years of data on response to spills in the Aleutians has also shown that almost no oil has been recovered during events where attempts have been made by the responsible parties or government agencies, and that in many cases, weather and other conditions have prevented any response at all.³⁷⁰

The behavior of oil spills in cold and icy waters is not as well understood as oil spills in more temperate climates.³⁷¹ In addition, in the summer months, the sea ice zone is a particularly challenging environment because the concentration of ice floes within a region is continuously changing.³⁷² The 2014 NRC report highlights some recent advancements in understanding oil spill behavior in the Arctic climate. At the same time, the report recommends further study on a range of related issues.

The 2014 NRC report states that in colder water temperatures or sea ice, “the processes that control oil weathering—such as spreading, evaporation, photo-oxidation, emulsification, and natural dispersion—are slowed down or eliminated for extended periods of time.”³⁷³ In some respects, the slower weathering processes may provide more time for response strategies, such as in situ burning or skimming. On the other hand, the longer the oil remains in an ecosystem, the more opportunity there is for exposure to humans and other species in the ecosystem.

In addition, the 2014 report states the following:

Arctic conditions impose many challenges for oil spill response—low temperatures and extended periods of darkness in the winter, oil that is encapsulated under ice or trapped in ridges and leads, oil spreading due to sea ice drift and surface currents, reduced effectiveness of conventional containment and recovery systems in measurable ice concentrations, and issues of life and safety of responders.

Oil Spill Policy–Regional Framework

The existing framework for international governance of maritime operations in the Arctic combines broader maritime agreements and agreements that focus on the geographic region. In terms of broader frameworks, the Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS) and other

367 33 U.S.C. §2703 and §2704.

368 33 U.S.C. §2712.

369 26 U.S.C. §9509.

370 Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences, Risk of Vessel Accidents and Spills in the Aleutian Islands: Designing a Comprehensive Risk Assessment (2008), Special Report 293, National Academies Press. Washington, DC.

371 NRC Report, 2014.

372 Jeremy Wilkinson et al., “Oil Spill Response Capabilities and Technologies for Ice-Covered Arctic Marine Waters: A Review of Recent Developments and Established Practices,” Ambio, 2017.

373 NRC Report, 2014.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 77

International Maritime Organization (IMO) conventions include provisions regarding ships in icy waters, but the provisions are not specific to the polar regions.

The IMO’s International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code) entered into force in 2017 and is mandatory under SOLAS and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (known as MARPOL).³⁷⁴ The Polar Code addresses a range of issues, including environmental protection.

In 2013, the member states of the Arctic Council signed an Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic.³⁷⁵ The agreement’s objective is to “strengthen cooperation, coordination, and mutual assistance ... on oil pollution preparedness and response in the Arctic.” The agreement entered force in 2016.³⁷⁶ A 2018 Coast Guard document describes the agreement as “binding.”³⁷⁷ The agreement includes multiple requirements for the parties, including oil spill notification, a process for requesting assistance and seeking reimbursement for costs, and joint preparation activities. Pursuant to the agreement the Arctic nations have conducted several joint training exercises.³⁷⁸

In addition, the United States has separate bilateral agreements with Canada and Russia that address oil spill response operations. The agreement with Canada was established in 1974 for the Great Lakes and has been amended several times to add more geographic areas, including Arctic waters.³⁷⁹ According to the 2014 NRC report: “formal contingency planning and exercises with Canada have enabled both the United States and Canada to refine procedures and legal requirements for cross-border movement of technical experts and equipment in the event of an emergency.”

The U.S.-Russian agreement was made in 1989 and applies to oil spill-related activities in Arctic waters. The 2014 NRC report asserted that the agreement has not been tested to the same extent as the U.S.-Canada agreement. In 2018, officials from both nations reportedly held a tabletop exercise for an oil spill scenario in the Bering Strait.³⁸⁰

Fisheries³⁸¹

The effects of climate change such as increasing sea surface temperatures, changes in regional oceanography, and decreasing permanent sea ice are altering the composition of marine

374 See the above section titled “Regulation of Arctic Shipping.”

375 Available at http://www.arctic-council.org. The agreement is sometimes described as the Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Spill Preparedness and Response in the Arctic (MOSPA).

376 Arctic Council, Status of ratification of Agreements negotiated under the auspices of the Arctic Council, 2016.

377 U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Environmental Response and Preparedness Manual, 2018, https://media.defense.gov/ 2018/Oct/01/2002046527/-1/-1/0/CIM_16000_14A.PDF.

378 See Arctic Council, Emergency Prevention Preparedness and Response Working Group, Planning Guidance for MOSPA Exercises, 2019; see also Michael LeVine et al., “Oil Spill Response in the North American Arctic,” in Managing the Risks of Offshore Oil and Gas Accidents: The International Legal Dimension, edited by Gunther Handl and Kristoffer Svendsen, 2019.

379 For more information, see U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Oil Spill Preparedness, Prevention, and Response on the Alaska OCS, 2019.

380 World Wildlife Federation, “Russia and the United States Hold Joint Exercises to Respond to Oil Spills in the Bering Strait,” November 2018, https://wwf.ru/en/resources/news/bioraznoobrazie/rossiya-i-ssha-proveli-sovmestnye- ucheniya-po-reagirovaniyu-na-razlivy-nefti-v-beringovom-prolive/.

381 This section was prepared by Anthony R. Marshak, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 78

ecosystems in the Arctic.³⁸² In addition, ocean acidification is occurring as the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere leads to greater absorption of CO2 by the global ocean.³⁸³ The Arctic Ocean is warming and acidifying faster than most other regions of the global ocean, which is likely to affect Arctic ecosystems and their living marine resources, including the distributions and productivity of living marine resources,³⁸⁴ their prey, and the species that support marine fisheries (e.g., Arctic cod; juvenile stages of red king crab and tanner crab).³⁸⁵

As a greater portion of the waters in the central Arctic Ocean become open for longer periods, the region’s resources are expected to become more accessible to commercial fishing.³⁸⁶ Approximately 15% of the world’s marine fisheries are caught in the Subarctic and Arctic.³⁸⁷ A majority of these catches are from large commercial fisheries (e.g., Arctic cod, haddock, capelin) that already occur in southern inflow shelves of the Arctic, including in the Barents and Norwegian Seas north of Europe; the Central North Atlantic off Greenland and Iceland; the Bering Sea off Russia and the United States (Alaska); and the Newfoundland and Labrador Seas off northeastern Canada.³⁸⁸ Contrastingly, the interior Arctic shelves and the Central Arctic Ocean have generally supported small, important subsistence catches.³⁸⁹ The southern inflow shelves are also the most likely locations for species expansions depending on available habitat.³⁹⁰ For

382 F. Mueter, “Arctic Fisheries in a Changing Climate,” in Global Arctic: An Introduction to the Multifaceted Dynamics of the Arctic, eds. M. Finger and G. Rekvig (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2022), pp. 279-296 (hereinafter Mueter, 2022, “Arctic Fisheries in a Changing Climate”); K.F. Drinkwater et al., “Possible Future Scenarios for Two Major Arctic Gateways Connecting Subarctic and Arctic Marine Systems: I. Climate and Physical-Chemical Oceanography,” ICES Journal of Marine Science, vol. 78, no. 9 (2021), pp. 3046-3065.

383 For more information about ocean acidification, see CRS Report R47300, Ocean Acidification: Frequently Asked Questions, by Caitlin Keating-Bitonti and Eva Lipiec.

384 P. Fauchald et al., “Poleward Shifts in Marine Fisheries under Arctic Warming,” Environmental Research Letters, vol. 16, no. 7 (2021), 074057, pp. 1-11; F.T. Chan et al., “Climate Change Opens New Frontiers for Marine Species in the Arctic: Current Trends and Future Invasion Risks,” Global Change Biology, vol. 25, no. 1 (2018), pp. 25-38.

385 R.L. Thoman et al., Arctic Report Card 2023, NOAA, 2023, https://doi.org/10.25923/5vfa-k694 (hereinafter Thoman et al., 2023, Arctic Report Card 2023); W.C. Long et al., “Effects of Ocean Acidification on Juvenile Red King Crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) and Tanner Crab (Chionoecetes bairdi) Growth, Condition, Calcification, and Survival,” PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 4 (2013), pp. e60959, pp 1-10; K. Holsman et al., “Chapter 6: Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerabilities and Adaptations: North Pacific and Pacific Arctic Marine Fisheries,” in Impacts of Climate Change on Fisheries and Aquaculture: Synthesis of Current Knowledge, Adaptation, and Mitigation Options, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Technical Paper 627, eds. M. Barange, T. Bahri, M.C.M. Beveridge, K.L. Cochrane, S. Funge-Smith, F. Poulain (Rome, Italy: FAO, 2018), pp. 113-138.

386 Mueter, 2022, “Arctic Fisheries in a Changing Climate”; A.B. Hollowed et al., “Potential Movement of Fish and Shellfish Stocks from the Sub-Arctic to the Arctic Ocean,” Fisheries Oceanography, vol. 22, no. 5 (2013), pp. 355-370 (hereinafter Hollowed et al., 2013, “Potential Movement of Fish and Shellfish Stocks from the Sub-Arctic to the Arctic Ocean.”

387 D. Zeller et al., “Still Catching Attention: Sea Around Us Reconstructed Global Catch Data, their Spatial Expression and Public Accessibility,” Marine Policy, vol. 70 (2016), pp. 145-152; Mueter, 2022, “Arctic Fisheries in a Changing Climate.”

388 Erik J. Molenaar and Robert Corell, Arctic Fisheries, Arctic Transform, February 9, 2009,http://arctic- transform.org/download/FishBP.pdf; O. Schram Stokke, “Arctic Geopolitics, Climate Change, and Resilient Fisheries Management,” in Ocean Yearbook, ed. A. Chircop, S. Coffen-Smout, M.L. McConnell, S.L. Seck, vol. 36 (Halifax, Canada: Brill, 2022), pp. 440-474. Although the Bering Sea is included in the Arctic Boundary as defined by the ARPA, the United States manages fisheries from this region separately from those in the Arctic Management Area; National Ocean Economics Program, “Arctic Fisheries,” https://www.oceaneconomics.org/NOEP/Arctic/fisheries/.

389 D. Zeller et al., “Arctic Fisheries Catches in Russia, USA, and Canada: Baselines for Neglected Ecosystems,” Polar Biology, vol. 34 (2011), pp. 955-973; Mueter, 2022, “Arctic Fisheries in a Changing Climate.”

390 E. Carmack and P. Wassmann, “Food Webs and Physical–Biological Coupling on Pan-Arctic Shelves: Unifying Concepts and Comprehensive Perspectives,” Progress in Oceanography, vol. 71, no. 2-4 (2006), pp. 446-477; Mueter, (continued...)

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 79

example, in U.S. waters in the eastern and northern Bering Sea, northward latitudinal shifts have been observed for Arctic cod, king and tanner crabs, sculpins, green sea urchin, and multiple groundfish species.³⁹¹ These latitudinal shifts are likely associated with regional warming.³⁹² Additionally, unprecedented amounts of foreign commercial fishing vessel trash washed ashore across the Bering Strait region in 2020, associated with increased foreign interest in exploiting northern Bering Sea marine fisheries (e.g., Pacific cod, walleye pollock).³⁹³

As the region warms, climate changes, and ocean acidification increases, fishery managers will be challenged to adjust management measures for changing ecological conditions, existing fisheries, and shifting species distributions.³⁹⁴ Uncertainties related to these changes and potential new fisheries in Arctic regions, including the central Arctic Ocean, have prompted many fishery managers to support precautionary approaches to fisheries management in the region.³⁹⁵ For example, some national governments have taken proactive measures to protect Arctic ecosystems from potential commercial fishing expansions, such as prohibitions on commercial fishing in the Norwegian Arctic north and west of the Svalbard archipelago.³⁹⁶

For waters under U.S. jurisdiction in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, in 2009, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service implemented the North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s (NPFMC’s) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area (Arctic FMP).³⁹⁷The Arctic FMP addresses concerns that unregulated or inadequately regulated commercial fisheries in the U.S. EEZ off Alaska could harm marine resources such as commercial fish populations (e.g., Arctic cod, saffron cod, snow crab), fish habitat, and other marine populations that are components of the ecosystem.³⁹⁸ The Arctic FMP prohibits commercial fishing in the Arctic Management Area and moves the northern boundary of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands king and tanner crab fishery management plan out of the Arctic Management Area south to the Bering Strait.³⁹⁹ The Arctic FMP takes a precautionary approach by requiring the consideration of research needs that may improve scientific understanding of fish stocks and environmental conditions before developing commercial fisheries in the region.⁴⁰⁰ The NPFMC developed a discussion paper that examines exploratory fishing undertaken by regional

2022, “Arctic Fisheries in a Changing Climate;” Hollowed et al., 2013, “Potential Movement of Fish and Shellfish Stocks from the Sub-Arctic to the Arctic Ocean.”

391 NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Distribution Mapping and Analysis Portal (DisMAP) data records, retrieved from apps-st.fisheries.noaa.gov/dismap/DisMAP.html and accessed January 31, 2024; M. Fossheim, “Recent Warming Leads to a Rapid Borealization of Fish Communities in the Arctic,” Nature Climate Change, vol. 5 (2015), pp. 673-677; Mueter, 2022, “Arctic Fisheries in a Changing Climate.”

392 Ibid.

393 G. Sheffield et al., “2020 Foreign Marine Debris Event - Bering Strait,” in Arctic Report Card 2021, ed. T.A. Moon, M.L. Duckenmiller, R.L. Thoman (NOAA, 2021), pp. 85-92, https://doi.org/10.25923/5s0f-5163.

394 Mueter, 2022, “Arctic Fisheries in a Changing Climate.”

395 Ibid.

396 Mueter, 2022, “Arctic Fisheries in a Changing Climate”; L.L. Jørgensen et al., “Responding to Global Warming: New fisheries Management and Measures in the Arctic,” Progress in Oceanography, vol. 188 (2020), 402423.

397 74 Federal Register 56734-56746, November 3, 2009.

398 North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), “Fishery Management Plan for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area,” August 2009, pp. 1-146, https://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFdocuments/fmp/Arctic/ ArcticFMP.pdf. Hereinafter NPFMC, 2009, “Fishery Management Plan for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area.”

399 NOAA, “Implementation of the Fishery Management Plan for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area (Arctic FMP),” https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/implementation-fishery-management-plan-fish-resources-arctic- management-area-arctic-fmp.

400 NPFMC, 2009, “Fishery Management Plan for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area,” p. 41.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 80

fishery management organizations and potential application of these efforts to the Arctic Ocean.⁴⁰¹ The FMP does not regulate subsistence or recreational fisheries in the Arctic, which are generally for small local use salmonid species and some upstream freshwater finfish species managed by the State of Alaska.⁴⁰²

International cooperation is necessary to manage Arctic resources because fish stocks are shared to some degree among the five Arctic coastal states.⁴⁰³ Further, a large portion of the central Arctic Ocean (2.8 million square kilometers) lies outside the EEZs of these nations. Ideally, regional management would recognize the need to coordinate management for fish populations that move among these national jurisdictional zones and the high seas.⁴⁰⁴

The U.S. executive branch and Congress also have promoted international approaches for the management of stocks in the Arctic Ocean. On June 1, 2008, President George W. Bush signed into law a joint resolution (P.L. 110-243) that directed “the United States to initiate international discussions and take necessary steps with other nations to negotiate an agreement for managing migratory and transboundary fish stocks in the Arctic Ocean.” The joint resolution also supported establishment of “a new international fisheries management organization or organizations for the region” and called for the United States to support international efforts to halt the expansion of commercial fishing activities in the Arctic high seas.⁴⁰⁵ On July 16, 2015, the five Arctic coastal states signed a nonbinding declaration to prevent unregulated commercial fishing in the high seas portion of the central Arctic Ocean.⁴⁰⁶ These five nations agreed that a precautionary approach to fishing was needed because of limited scientific knowledge of marine resources in the central Arctic Ocean.⁴⁰⁷

The declaration was followed by negotiations among officials from the five Arctic coastal states, four major fishing nations,⁴⁰⁸ and the European Union.⁴⁰⁹ On October 3, 2018, the parties signed a legally binding international accord to prevent unregulated high seas fisheries in the central Arctic Ocean as part of a long-term strategy to safeguard healthy marine ecosystems and to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of fish stocks.⁴¹⁰

401 Steve MacLean, Exploratory Fishing in Global Regional Fishery Management Organizations, North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK, February 2018.

402 NPFMC, “Arctic – Fishery Management Plan for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area (Arctic FMP),” https://www.npfmc.org/fisheries-issues/fisheries/fishing-in-the-arctic/; Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), “Commercial Fisheries Overview – Arctic Management Area,” https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=commercialbyareanorthern.main; ADFG, “North Slope Management Area – Overview,” https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=ByAreaInteriorNorthSlope.main.

403 As noted in the “Background” section, the five Arctic coastal states include the United States, Canada, Denmark (by virtue of Greenland), Norway, and the Russian Federation.

404 UNCLOS provides a framework for the management of fish stocks that migrate between EEZs and the high seas. For more information, see CRS Report R47744, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): Living Resources Provisions, by Caitlin Keating-Bitonti.

405 D. Balton, “Implementing the New Arctic Fisheries Agreement,” in New Knowledge and Changing Circumstances in the Law of the Sea, Publications on Ocean Development, ed. T. Heidar, vol. 92 (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Nijhoff), pp. 429-445.

406 See https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/rulesneg_e/fish_e/2015_oslo_declaration.pdf.

407 Ibid.

408 The four major fishing nations include Iceland, Japan, South Korea, and the People’s Republic of China.

409 The agreement includes Arctic indigenous peoples as participants in meetings and as a source of scientific information and local knowledge.

410 NOAA, “U.S. Signs Agreement to Prevent Unregulated Commercial Fishing on the High Seas of the Central Arctic Ocean,” https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/us-signs-agreement-prevent-unregulated-commercial-fishing- high-seas-central-arctic.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 81

The parties also agreed that no commercial fisheries will be conducted in the Arctic high seas before an international management regime is put in place to regulate commercial fishing. The agreement also established a joint scientific program to conduct research and monitor the region’s marine ecosystem.⁴¹¹ The agreement is seen by experts as the first step toward establishing one or more regional fisheries management organizations for the Arctic Ocean.⁴¹² On June 25, 2021, the agreement entered into force with the ratification of all 10 signatories.⁴¹³

Currently, there is no commercial fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean, for which a 16-year moratorium is in place since June 2021.⁴¹⁴ However, it remains an open question whether an Arctic Ocean regional fishery management organization will be established, which countries would be included in such an arrangement, and if sustainable commercial fisheries can be developed in the central Arctic Ocean.⁴¹⁵ Additionally, continued domestic and foreign interests in Arctic fisheries, including the opening of a Russian-controlled pollock fishery in the Chukchi Sea in 2020, have furthered concerns among international stakeholders regarding the timing and implementation of such management developments.⁴¹⁶ Furthermore, some concerns linger regarding the perceived fragility of the agreement, including whether certain signatory nations such as Russia and China might remain parties to the agreement.⁴¹⁷

Protected Species⁴¹⁸

There are several federal trust species in the Arctic protected by U.S. statutes such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543), Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. §§1361-1407), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. §703- 712).⁴¹⁹ Species included under these statutes are protected to varying degrees from factors that affect their populations. Some examples of species listed under one or more of these statutes include the polar bear (Ursus maritimus), the bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus), and the Eskimo curlew (Numenius borealis).⁴²⁰

Ecological changes due to climate change and human activities could affect some protected species in the Arctic. For example, the polar bear was listed as threatened under the ESA in 2008

411 Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean, Article 4.

412 V. J. Schatz, A. Proelss, and N. Liu, “The 2018 Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean: A Critical Analysis," The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, vol. 34, no. 2 (2019), pp. 195-244.

413 U.S. Department of State, “The Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean Enters into Force,” press release, June 25, 2021, https://www.state.gov/the-agreement-to-prevent-unregulated-high- seas-fisheries-in-the-central-arctic-ocean-enters-into-force/.

414 Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean, Article 13.

415 Some experts debate whether existing fisheries resources in the Central Arctic Ocean could sustain a fishery. Mueter, 2022, “Arctic Fisheries in a Changing Climate.”

416 Cliff White, “US, Russia Eyeing Development of Arctic Fisheries,” Seafood Source, April 12, 2023, https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/supply-trade/us-russia-eyeing-development-of-arctic-fisheries.

417 National Fisherman (Paul Molyneaux), “Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement on Fragile Ground as Global Tensions Mount," Seafood Source, March 10, 2023, https://www.seafoodsource.com/national-fisherman/arctic-ocean-fisheries- agreement-on-fragile-ground-as-global-tensions-mount.

418 This section was prepared by Pervaze A. Sheikh, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy.

419 For more information on the Endangered Species Act, see CRS Report R46677, The Endangered Species Act: Overview and Implementation, by Pervaze A. Sheikh, Erin H. Ward, and R. Eliot Crafton.

420 Covered species pursuant to the ESA, MBTA, and MMPA are listed in the Code for Federal regulations at 50 C.F.R. §§17.11-17.12 (Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants), 50 C.F.R. §10.13 (List of Migratory Birds), and 50 C.F.R. 18.3 and 216.3 (definitions).

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 82

and is protected under MMPA due to its classification as a marine mammal.⁴²¹ Declining sea ice levels in the Arctic threaten polar bear populations. Polar bears use sea ice as a platform to hunt for seals and other prey, travel to maternal denning areas, and seek mates, among other things.⁴²² In contrast, changing ecological conditions in the Arctic could be helping the bowhead whale. The bowhead whale is listed under the ESA and covered by the MMPA. Bowhead whale populations declined due to hunting and commercial whaling until these activities ceased in the 1920s. According to scientists, in the past 30 years populations of bowhead whales have increased in the Pacific Arctic and East Canada/West Greenland region due to increases in ocean primary production and the availability of zooplankton, which is a food source for the species.⁴²³

Certain activities in the Arctic have the potential to affect, directly or indirectly, species, including federal trust species, and habitat in the areas in which they are undertaken. In turn, the laws that designate or provide the authority to list and protect federal trust species and their implementing regulations may, with certain exceptions, restrict certain activities, require action agencies to seek permits, or mandate efforts to protect such species. ESA, MMPA, and MBTA, for example, prohibit take, including in some cases nonlethal harassment, of covered species.⁴²⁴ For example, as described in the cases below, federal agencies that authorize, fund, or carry out activities that may affect federally listed endangered or threatened species or modify critical habitat designated under the ESA may be required to consult with FWS or NMFS pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, and individuals undertaking actions that may harm or harass marine mammals may be required to obtain an incidental take authorization from either FWS or NMFS. For marine mammals that are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, action agencies may be required to obtain both an incidental take authorization pursuant to the MMPA, as well as undertake consultation pursuant to the ESA.

Section 9 of the ESA identifies prohibited acts related to species listed as endangered under the act, and Section 4(d) authorizes the listing agency, either FWS or NMFS, to establish protections, including prohibiting take, for species listed as threatened through the issuance of a special rule known as a 4(d) rule.⁴²⁵ Further, Section 7 of the act requires federal agencies that carry out, fund, or authorize actions that may affect listed species or designated critical habitat to consult with

421 There are 19 populations of polar bears inhabiting the Arctic.

422 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Polar Bears, https://www.fws.gov/alaska/pages/marine-mammals/polar-bear.

423 Richard L. Thoman et al., Arctic Report Card 2020, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, December 2020.

424 Take is defined in statute for ESA and MMPA and defined or clarified in regulations for MMPA and MBTA. With regard to the ESA, take “means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. §1532(19)). Pursuant to MMPA, take is defined “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal” (16 U.S.C. §1362(13)) and is further clarified in regulations to include “the collection of dead animals or parts thereof; the restraint or detention of a marine mammal, no matter how temporary; tagging a marine mammal; or the negligent or intentional operation of an aircraft or vessel, or the doing of any other negligent or intentional act which results in the disturbing or molesting of a marine mammal” (50 C.F.R. §18.3). For the MBTA, take is not defined in statute but is defined in regulation to mean “to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” (50 C.F.R. §10.12). Pursuant to regulations, both ESA and MMPA allow for certain subsistence use and take by Alaska Natives (50 C.F.R. parts 17 and 18).

425 Section 9 of the ESA is at 16 U.S.C. 1538, and Section 4(d) is at 16 U.S.C. 1533(d). In the 1970s, FWS promulgated rules, collectively known as the blanket 4(d) rule that extended most of the protections afforded to endangered species to threatened species, unless they were superseded by a species-specific 4(d) rule. The blanket 4(d) rule was modified in 2019, and automatic protections were no longer provided for species listed by FWS after September 26, 2019. NMFS never implemented a similar blanket 4(d) rule, and NMFS issues 4(d) rules on a case by case basis. For more information, see CRS Report R46677, The Endangered Species Act: Overview and Implementation, by Pervaze A. Sheikh, Erin H. Ward, and R. Eliot Crafton.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 83

FWS or NMFS.⁴²⁶ This consultation may result in in the issuance of a biological opinion, which provides recommendations and requirements to minimize or avoid negative impacts to listed species and critical habitat and may authorize the incidental take—take that is otherwise prohibited and incidental to but not the purpose of an otherwise lawful the action—of listed species.⁴²⁷ Activities that may require Section 7 consultation could include, but are not limited to, actions related to construction, fisheries, oil and gas, research, and military. For example, the Bureau of Land Management may need to consult with FWS before authorizing oil and gas activities that may affect the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) or may be required to consult with FWS.⁴²⁸ Similarly the Navy may need to consult with NMFS before undertaking military activity that may affect the arctic ringed seal (Phoca hispida hispida).⁴²⁹ In addition, because each of the aforementioned activities may impact marine mammals, both would also be subject to MMPA and may require an incidental harassment authorization under such act.⁴³⁰

CRS Reports on Specific Arctic-Related Issues

CRS In Focus IF10740, The Nordic Countries and U.S. Relations, by Kristin Archick

CRS Insight IN11161, Greenland, Denmark, and U.S. Relations, by Kristin Archick

CRS Report R47620, Canada: Background and U.S. Relations, coordinated by Peter J. Meyer

CRS Report R46761, Russia: Foreign Policy and U.S. Relations, by Andrew S. Bowen and Cory Welt

CRS Report R44566, The Coast Guard’s Role in Safeguarding Maritime Transportation: Selected Issues, by John Frittelli

CRS Report RL34391, Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (Polar Icebreaker) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke

CRS Report R47912, Outer Limits of the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf: Background and Issues for Congress, by Caitlin Keating-Bitonti

CRS Report RL33872, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): An Overview, by M. Lynne Corn, Michael Ratner, and Laura B. Comay

CRS In Focus IF12006, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Status of Oil and Gas Program, by Laura B. Comay

CRS Report R45192, Oil and Gas Activities Within the National Wildlife Refuge System, by R. Eliot Crafton, Laura B. Comay, and Marc Humphries

426 Section 7 of the ESA is at 16 U.S.C. 1536. For more information on Section 7 of the ESA, see CRS Report R46867, Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation and Infrastructure Projects, by Erin H. Ward, R. Eliot Crafton, and Pervaze A. Sheikh.

427 Incidental taking is defined at 50 C.F.R. 17.3 as it related to the ESA.

428 For example, see FWS, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Office, Biological Opinion for Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Consultation with the Bureau of Land Management, March 13, 2020, at https://ecos.fws.gov/tails/pub/document/16469143.

429 For example, see NMFS, Alaska Office, Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion Ice Exercise 2020 NMFS Consultation Number: AKRO-2019-02445, at https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/ 24263.

430 For example, see NMFS, Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy 2020 Ice Exercise Activities in the Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean, 85 Federal Register 6518, 2/05/2020.

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service R41153 · VERSION 207 · UPDATED 84

CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10943, The Willow Project: History and Litigation, by Adam Vann ⁴³¹

CRS Report RL33705, Oil Spills: Background and Governance, by Jonathan L. Ramseur

Author Information

Ronald O'Rourke, Coordinator Specialist in Naval Affairs

^{Anthony R. Marshak}

Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Laura B. Comay Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

^{Jonathan L. Ramseur}

Specialist in Environmental Policy

John Frittelli Specialist in Transportation Policy

^{Lexie Ryan}

Analyst in Energy Policy

Emma Kaboli Analyst in Energy Policy

^{Pervaze A. Sheikh}

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Caitlin Keating-Bitonti Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

431 The Willow Project is an oil and gas drilling and production project in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), a 23-million-acre area on the North Slope of Alaska under federal control.

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Aug. 7, 2024

HTML · PDF

<1% changed

Jul. 30, 2024

HTML · PDF

Mar. 19, 2024

HTML · PDF

Jan. 18, 2024

HTML · PDF