Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

March 30, 2010 – March 19, 2024 R41153

Changes in the Arctic:
Background and Issues for Congress
Updated March 19, 2024
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R41153

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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.
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. 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 20th century] and into a period of unprecedented change, with
implications not only within but also beyond the Arctic.”
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.
Congressional Research Service

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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 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 1/24th and 1/25th) 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...)
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 7 link to page 8 Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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.
Congressional Research Service

2

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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).
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 5

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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...)
Congressional Research Service

4

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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 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.
A subset of the eight Arctic countries are the five countries that are considered Arctic coastal
states because they have mainland coasts that front onto waters north of the Arctic Circle: the
United States, Canada, Denmark (by virtue of Greenland), Norway, and Russia.

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

5

link to page 8 Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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 July 1, 2017—live in the Arctic part of Alaska as shown
in Figure 2.19 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
policy, and designated the NSF representative on the IARPC as its chairperson;24
and
• defined the term “Arctic” for purposes of the act.

19 Source for figure of fewer than 68,000: CRS analysis of data presented in Table 3.1, entitled Alaska Population by
Region, Borough, and Census Area, 2017 to 2045, in Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development,
Research and Analysis Section, Alaska Population Projections: 2017 to 2045, June 2018, p. 26. The table shows that of
Alaska’s estimated population as of July 1, 2017 of 737,080, a total of 589,680, of about 80%, resided in the
Anchorage/Matanuska-Susitna region (401,649), the Fairbanks North Star Borough (97,738), the Kenai Peninsula
Borough (58,024), and Juneau (32,269).
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/.
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.
Congressional Research Service

6

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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
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
Directive 66/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 25 (NSPD 66/HSPD 25).27 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.
May 2013 National Strategy for Arctic Region
On May 10, 2013, the Obama Administration released a document entitled National Strategy for
the Arctic Region.28 The document appears to supplement rather than supersede the January 2009

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 The text of NSPD 66/HSPD 25 is posted at the Homeland Security Digital Library at https://www.hsdl.org/?
abstract&did=750476.
28 National Strategy for the Arctic Region, May 2013, 11 pp.
Congressional Research Service

7

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Arctic policy directive (NSPD 66/HSPD 25) discussed above.29 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.30 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
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.

29 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.
30 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.
Congressional Research Service

8

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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.31
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.
• 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

31 White House, National Security Strategy, October 2022, pp. 44-45.
Congressional Research Service

9

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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.32
In October 2023, the Biden Administration released an implementation plan for its October 2022
national strategy for the Arctic region.33 The implementation plan includes 13 strategic objectives
in support of the October 2022 document’s four pillars.34

32 White House, National Strategy for the Arctic Region, October 2022, pp. 3-4.
33 White House, Implementation Plan for the 2022 National Strategy for the Arctic Region, October 18, 2023, 58 pp.
34 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
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.
Congressional Research Service

10

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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.35 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.36
In the 117th 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,37 while S. 2967, the Arctic Diplomacy Act
of 2021, would have established the position of Assistant Secretary of State for Arctic Affairs.38 In
the 118th 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.39 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.40 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

35 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.
36 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.
37 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.
38 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.
39 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.
40 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 1st Arctic Ambassador,” Anchorage Daily News, February 14,
2023.
Congressional Research Service

11

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Senate.41 The Biden Administration subsequently renominated Sfraga for the position; the
nomination was received in the Senate on January 11, 2024.42
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.43 The AESC was initially established by the above-mentioned January 2015
Executive Order 13689 on enhancing coordination of Arctic efforts.44
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.”45
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

41 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.)
42 See “PN1342—Michael Sfraga—Department of State” at https://www.congress.gov/nomination/118th-
congress/1342.
43 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.
44 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.)
45 “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/.
Congressional Research Service

12

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

organizations, and 12 nongovernmental organizations have been approved as observers, making
for a total of 38 observer states and organizations.46
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.47
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.”48 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 May 23, 2023, 169 parties (168 states and the
European Union) were party to the treaty.49
The United States is not a party to UNCLOS.50 The 1982 treaty and the 1994 agreement were
transmitted to the Senate on October 6, 1994, during the 103rd 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

46 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.
47 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/.
48 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.
49 Chronological lists of ratifications of, accessions and successions to the Convention and the related Agreements as of
May 23, 2023, accessed March 7, 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
Rwanda, which became a party on May 18, 2023.
50 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.
Congressional Research Service

13

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

UNCLOS.51 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.52
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.53
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 114th Congress (2015-2017).54
In the Senate, Senator Lisa Murkowski and Senator Angus King announced on March 4 and 5,
2015, the formation of a Senate Arctic Caucus.55

51 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.
52 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.)
53 Other parts of UNCLOS relevant to the Arctic include those relating to navigation and high-seas freedoms, fisheries,
and exclusive economic zones.
54 Committee on House Administration, “Congressional Member And Staff Organizations,” Congressional Member
Organizations (CMOs) for 107th through 118th Congresses, accessed March 7, 2024, at https://cha.house.gov/
congressional-member-and-staff-organizations. In the 116th Cong., the group was listed as the Arctic Working Group
Caucus; in the 117th Cong., it was listed as the Arctic Working Group.
55 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...)
Congressional Research Service

14

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Issues for Congress
Climate Change, with Biophysical and Economic Impacts56
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.”57
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
20th century] and into a period of unprecedented change, with implications not only within
but also beyond the Arctic.58
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.)
56 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.
57 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.
58 Jason E Box et al., “Key Indicators of Arctic Climate Change: 1971–2017,” Environmental Research Letters 14, no.
4, April 2019.
Congressional Research Service

15

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

• 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.59 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).60 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.61 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.62 In addition, positive
feedbacks from the loss of summer sea ice and spring snow cover on land have amplified
warming in the Arctic.63
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, 2021.64
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.

59 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.
60 T.J. Ballinger et al., “Surface Air Temperature,” Arctic Program, Arctic Report Card 2021.
61 Alvaro Avila-Diaz et al., “Climate Extremes across the North American Arctic in Modern Reanalyses,” Journal of
Climate 34, no. 7, April 1, 2021.
62 Ibid.
63 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.)
64 National Snow and Ice Data Center, “Rain at the Summit of Greenland,” August 18, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

16

link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 22

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Sea Ice Decline and Mobility
Figure 3. 2012 Record-Low Sea Ice Extent
Arctic sea ice has declined in extent, area, and
(Compared with long-term median)
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 3 and Figure
4), 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-free65 seasons in the Arctic
Ocean within decades. Recent late summer
minima may be unprecedented over the past
1,000 years.66 (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).”
Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center, Sea Ice
67
Index, accessed February 28, 2022.
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
4).68 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.69 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

65 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.
66 SROCC SPM 2019.
67 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/.
68 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.
69 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.
Congressional Research Service

17

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

levels.70 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 4. 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 mil ion 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.”71
The Arctic Ocean has been undergoing additional changes: It has been acidifying—with some
parts acidifying more rapidly than the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans.72 Some scientists estimate that

70 The current temperature increase above the 1850-1900 average is about 1.1°C.
71 SROCC SPM 2019.
72 Di Qi et al., “Increase in Acidifying Water in the Western Arctic Ocean,” Nature Climate Change 7, no. 3, March
2017.
Congressional Research Service

18

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

acidification of the Arctic Ocean may increase enough by the 2030s to significantly influence
coastal ecosystems.73 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.”74 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.75 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,”76 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.”77 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 2050.78 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.79

73 U.S. Global Change Research Program, “Climate Science Special Report,” Fourth National Climate Assessment, vol.
1, October 2017, https://science2017.globalchange.gov/.
74 Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center, “Climate Impacts to Arctic Coasts,” U.S. Geological Survey, October 15,
2021.
75 SROCC SPM 2019.
76 SROCC SPM 2019.
77 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.
78 SROCC SPM 2019.
79 SROCC SPM 2019.
Congressional Research Service

19

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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).80
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.”81 More
broadly, warming and ecosystem shifts have “increased risk of food- and waterborne diseases,
malnutrition, injury, and mental health challenges especially among Indigenous peoples.”82
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.83
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.”84 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 Environment85
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

80 SROCC SPM 2019.
81 SROCC SPM 2019.
82 SROCC SPM 2019.
83 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.
84 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.
85 This section was prepared by Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

20

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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,86 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.87 Other observers argue that competitive aspects of the region’s geopolitical
environment and the notion of a race for Arctic resources are sometimes overstated.88
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:89
• 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

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.
86 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.
87 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.
88 See, for example, 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; Thomas
Graham and Amy Myers Jaffe, “There Is No Scramble for the Arctic,” Foreign Affairs, July 276, 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.
89 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.
Congressional Research Service

21

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Arctic Council, Arctic governance, and cooperation in general among the eight
Arctic states.90 Specific reported developments include the following:
• On March 3, 2022, in response to Russia’s invasion, the seven Arctic states
other than Russia—who are sometimes referred to as the Arctic 7 or A7—
announced that they would be “temporarily pausing participation in all
meetings of the [Arctic] Council and its subsidiary bodies.”91
• The Nordic Council of Ministers similarly stated that it was suspending its
cooperation with Russia and Belarus,92 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 2023.93
• 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.
• 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

90 See, for example, Jennifer Spence, “The Future of Arctic Council Innovation: Charting a Course for Working-Level
Cooperation,” Belfer Center (Harvard Kennedy School), 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.
91 U.S. Department of State, “Joint Statement on Arctic Council Cooperation Following Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine,”
March 3, 2022.
92 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.
93 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.
Congressional Research Service

22

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

include Russia. He also reportedly stated that China would continue to
cooperate in the Arctic with both the A7 states and Russia.94
• On February 21, 2023, Russia published amendments to its Arctic policy
statement that removed mentions of the Arctic Council.95
• 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 2023.96
• 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.”97
• 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.98
• 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.”99
• 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.100

94 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.
95 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.
96 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.
97 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.
98 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.
99 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.
100 Lidia Kelly, “Russia Suspends Annual Payments to Arctic Council, RIA Agency Reports,” Reuters, February 14,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

23

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

• 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.”101
• 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.102 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.103 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.104
• Finland and Sweden become members of NATO. Russia’s war in Ukraine
prompted Finland and Sweden to apply for NATO membership.105

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.
101 “Arctic Council Advances Resumption of Project-Level Work,” Arctic Council, February 28, 2024.
102 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.
103 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.
104 See, for example, 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, 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.
105 See, for example, Trine Jonassen (translation by Birgitte Annie Molid Martinussen), “Sanna Marin: ‘Everything
Changed Overnight,’” High North News, January 11, 2024.
Congressional Research Service

24

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

• On April 4, 2023, Finland became a member of NATO,106 which converted
Finland’s 833-mile border with Russia107 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.108 (By way of comparison, Norway’s border with
Russia, all of which is above the Arctic Circle, is about 123 miles in
length.)109 Almost one-third of Finland’s territory is north of the Arctic
Circle.110 In these ways, Finland becoming a member of NATO has increased
the Arctic as an area of focus for NATO.111
• On March 7, 2024, Sweden became a member of NATO, which further
increased the Arctic as an area of focus for NATO,112 given that about 15% of
Sweden’s land area is north of the Arctic Circle.113

106 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.
107 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, 9th 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.
108 Source: CRS measurement, February 27, 2023.
109 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.)
110 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.
111 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).
112 See, for example, James Stavridis, “Sweden and Finland Give NATO an Arctic Opportunity,” Bloomberg, July 13,
2023; Ellen Knickmeyer, “Finland, Sweden Offer NATO an Edge as Rivalry Warms Up North,” Associated Press,
August 20, 2022; Jonathan Masters, “How NATO Will Change if Finland and Sweden Become Members,” Council on
Foreign Relations, updated June 29, 2022; Jan Kallberg, “Defending NATO in the High North,” Center for European
Policy Analysis (CEPA), July 1, 2022; Joe Gould, “How Sweden and Finland Could Reshape NATO’s Northern
Security,” Defense News, June 2, 2022; Svetlana Shkolnikova, “Addition of Finland and Sweden to NATO Would
Strengthen Arctic Security, Improve US Training, Military Officials Say,” Stars and Stripes, May 18, 2022.
113 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
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/.)
Congressional Research Service

25

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

• 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.114
• 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 Arctic115—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.116
• 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.117

114 See Thomas Nilsen, “Shoigu Vows More Troops Near Nordic Countries,” Barents Observer, December 21, 2022.
115 See, for example, 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; 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); Ken Moriyasu, “China-Russia Ties in Arctic Keep U.S. and Canada on
Alert,” Nikkei Asia, December 28, 2023; Frida Ghitis, “As Arctic Ice Melts, a New Russia-China Threat Looms,” CNN,
December 20, 2023; Mercy A. Kuo, “Assessing China’s and Russia’s Arctic Ambitions, Insights from Kristina Spohr,”
Diplomat, December 20, 2023; Shifting Ice: Russia’s Increasing Reliance on the Private Sector and the PRC in the
Arctic, Strider Technologies, undated but with references through December 2023, 17 pp.; Kristina Spohr, “Russia and
China Are Opening a New Anti-Western Front in the Arctic,” Financial Times, November 9, 2023; Atle Staalesen,
“Russian Arctic Regions Strengthen Bonds with Beijing,” Barents Observer, September 20, 2023; Astri Edvardsen,
“Russia and China Discussed Further Arctic Cooperation—Also Within the Arctic Council,” High North News,
September 15, 2023; Justin Katz, “Admiral Sounds Alarm amid Rising Russian, Chinese Movement in High North,”
Breaking Defense, September 5, 2023; Astri Edvardsen, “Massive Russian [diplomatic] Mobilization in the Arctic,
High North News’ Overview Shows, High North News, September 1, 2023; Seong Hyeon Choi, “Western Sanctions
and Distrust Draw China, Russia Closer in the Arctic,” South China Morning Post, July 25, 2023; Richard Milne,
“Arctic Chill: Western Nations Fear China and Russia Will Exploit Regional Tensions,” Financial Times, June 5, 2023;
Elisabeth Braw, “Arctic Harmony Is Falling Apart, An Isolated Russia Is Turning to China for Help in the North,”
Foreign Policy, May 15, 2023; Eilís Quinn, “Russia’s Growing Dependence on China Altering Dynamics in Arctic,
UK Committee Hears,” Eye on the Arctic, May 9, 2023; Thomas Nilsen, “Russia’s Coast Guard Cooperation with
China Is a Big Step, Arctic Security Expert Says,” Barents Observer, April 28, 2023; Malte Humpert, “Putin and Xi
Discuss Further Deepening of Arctic Partnership,” High North News, March 23, 2023.
116 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.
117 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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

26

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

• 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.118 Western
sanctions have reportedly impeded Russian energy projects in the Arctic.119 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.”120
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.121 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.122

(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
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.
118 Melody Schreiber, “Major Oil Companies and Investors Pull Back from Russian Arctic Oil and Gas,” ArcticToday,
March 5, 2022.
119 See, for example, 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; Seth Stevenson and
Matt Jones, “Sanctions Delay Chinese Equipment to Russian Arctic Energy Projects,” Tearline.mil, October 25, 2022;
Lee Ferran, “Arctic Chill: Sanctions Biting Chinese-Russian Energy Initiatives, IC-Sponsored Report Says,” Breaking
Defense, October 26, 2022; Georgi Kantchev, “Sanctions Threaten Russia’s Next Huge Oil Field,” Wall Street Journal,
July 5, 2022; Atle Staalesen, “American Engineers Deal Blow to Russian Arctic Oligarch,” Barents Observer, June 16,
2022; Sergey Sukhankin, “Russia’s Arctic Strategy Melting Under the Scorch of Sanctions (Part One),” Eurasia Daily
Monitor, June 1, 2022; Atle Staalesen, “Russian Arctic Oil Export Moves Towards Collapse,” Barents Observer, June
1, 2022; Atle Staalesen, “Biggest Arctic Construction Sites Could Turn into Ghost Towns,” Barents Observer, May 17,
2022; Atle Staalesen, “Big Collapse Looms over Russian Arctic Policy,” Barents Observer, March 30, 2022.
120 Ed Davey, “Top US Firms Supplied Equipment to Keep Russian Oil Flowing after Ukraine Invasion,” Associated
Press, July 18, 2023.
121 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.
122 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,
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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

27

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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.
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

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.
Congressional Research Service

28

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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]123 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.124
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.125 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.”126 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
the principal means for addressing issues relating to the Arctic, and had begun to use other
approaches for influencing Arctic governance.127

123 The NSR is an Arctic sea route connecting Europe to East Asia that runs generally along Russia’s Arctic coast.
124 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.
125 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); 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.
126 Arctic Council, “About the Arctic Council,” accessed March 7, 2024, at https://arctic-council.org/en/about/.
127 See, for example, Pan Yixuan, “Global Governance Needed for Arctic Affairs,” China Daily, May 10, 2019; Zhang
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

29

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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.128 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 for attention and resources
against these other regions. Some observers argue that the United States is not allocating
sufficient attention or resources to defend and promote its interests in the Arctic.129 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
Ambassador’s role within the department, and greater authority to coordinate with all the
relevant bureaus across the department.130

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.
128 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.
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; 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.
130 Government Accountability Office, Arctic Region: Factors That Facilitate and Hinder the Advancement of U.S.
Priorities, GAO-23-106002, September 2023, highlights page.
Congressional Research Service

30

link to page 56 link to page 56 Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Russia in the Arctic
Overview
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.”131 About 20% of
Russia’s land mass is north of the Arctic Circle,132 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.133
• 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 with 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
NSR for use by others seeking to transport goods between Europe and Asia.134
• In light of the above points, of all the Arctic states, Russia might have the most at
stake in the Arctic in absolute terms.135

131 “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/.)
132 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.
133 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).”
134 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.
135 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R46761, Russia: Foreign Policy and U.S. Relations, by Andrew S.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

31

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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.”136 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,137 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.138 Prior to Russia’s war in Ukraine,
some observers saw possibilities for further cooperation by the A7 states with Russia in the
Arctic.139 Since the start of Russia’s war in Ukraine, those possibilities have narrowed
considerably, but U.S.-Russian marine safety-related cooperation in the Bering Strait reportedly
continued,140 and some observers see some limited possibilities for additional cooperation.141

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.
136 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.
137 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.
138 See Melody Schreiber, “U.S. and Russia Sign New Maritime Pollution Agreement, Conduct Joint Bering Sea
Patrol,” ArcticToday, February 10, 2021.
139 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
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.
140 Yereth Rosen, “Despite Ukraine war, US and Russia Continue Emergency Cooperation in the Bering Strait,”
ArcticToday, April 11, 2022.
141 See Yereth Rosen, “Despite Russia’s Post-Invasion Isolation, Some Narrow Openings for Arctic Cooperation
Remain,” Alaska Beacon, April 11, 2023.
Congressional Research Service

32

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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.142
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.143 The U.S.-Russian dispute over this issue could have implications not only
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.144

142 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.
143 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
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.
144 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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

33

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

NATO and European Union in the Arctic
NATO
Seven of the eight Arctic states—all those other than Russia—are members of NATO. During the
Cold War, 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 further
strengthened NATO’s focus on this question.
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.145
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.146 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

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.)
145 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.
146 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.
Congressional Research Service

34

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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 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.147 As noted earlier, Russia’s diplomatic isolation 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.148 In January 2018, China released a white paper on China’s Arctic policy that
refers to China as a “near-Arctic state.”149 (China’s northernmost territory, northeast of Mongolia,

147 See, for example, 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,
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; 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.
148 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/.
149 “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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

35

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

is at about the same latitude as the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, which, as noted earlier in this
report, 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 Chinese-anchored or Chinese-led infrastructure and economic network.150 The polar
regions (both the Arctic and Antarctic) are included in China’s 14th Five-Year Plan, covering the
period 2021-2025.151
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 2023.152
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.153 China’s

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
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.
150 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.
151 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.
152 See, for example, Global Times, “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
Chinese 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.
153 See, for example, Yang Jiang, Chinese Investments in Greenland, Origins, Progress and Actors, Dansk Institut for
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

36

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

engagement with Greenland appears related in significant part to Greenland’s deposits of rare
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 China154 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.155 In addition to using the NSR, China reportedly reached an
agreement with Russia on July 4, 2017, to create an “Ice Silk Road.”156
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.157 In February
2023, it was reported that a Russian firm had signed an agreement with a Chinese firm for the
development of a titanium mining project in the Russian Arctic.158 China’s government reportedly
is also interested in mining opportunities in the Canadian Arctic, and as mentioned earlier, in
Greenland.159 China’s leaders may also be interested in Arctic fishing grounds.
The Chinese high-altitude surveillance balloon 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).160 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.”161 A
July 2023 press report stated that “China has completed the field testing and evaluation of an

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.
154 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.
155 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.
156 Xinhua, “China, Russia agree to jointly build ‘Ice Silk Road,’” Xinhuanet, July 4, 2017.
157 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.
158 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.
159 See, for example, Regin Winther Poulsen, “How Greenland’s Mineral Wealth Made It a Geopolitical Battleground,”
Foreign Policy, December 18, 2022.
160 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.
161 Xiaoshan Xue, “Reports: Canada Found, Retrieved Chinese Spy Buoys in Arctic,” Voice of America, March 1,
2023.
Congressional Research Service

37

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

underwater listening device that will be deployed on a large scale in the Arctic Ocean, according
to the Polar Research Institute of China.”162
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.)163
Arctic States’ Response
China’s activities in the Arctic could create new opportunities for cooperation between China and
the Arctic states. They also, however, have the potential for posing challenges to the Arctic states
in terms of defending their own interests in the Arctic. 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. As noted earlier, some observers view the Arctic as having become an arena
for geopolitical competition among the United States, Russia, and China. Other observers see
potential areas for U.S.-Chinese cooperation in the Arctic.164
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 Council165 as a punitive cost-

162 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.
163 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.
164 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.
165 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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

38

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

imposing measure for unwanted Chinese actions in the South China Sea.166 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.167
China’s interest and investments in Greenland are a matter of concern for U.S. policymakers.
Chinese 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.168
In May 2019, the State Department announced a plan for establishing a permanent diplomatic
presence in Greenland,169 and on June 2020, the State Department formally announced the
reopening of the U.S. consulate in Greenland’s capital of Nuuk.170 In April 2020, the U.S.

will have its status as an Observer suspended.
(Arctic Council. Observer Manual for Subsidiary Bodies, p. 5. The document was accessed March
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.
166 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.
167 U.S. Department of State, “Looking North: Sharpening America’s Arctic Focus, Remarks, Michael R. Pompeo,
Secretary of State, Rovaniemi, Finland, May 6, 2019.”
168 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.
169 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.
170 See, for example, Eavan Cull, “Setting Up Shop in Nuuk,” Foreign Service Journal, May 2021; Lauren Meier and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

39

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

government announced $12.1 million economic aid package for Greenland that the Trump
Administration presented as a U.S. action done in a context of Chinese and Russian actions aimed
at increasing their presence and influence in Greenland.171
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.172
Russian-Chinese 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.”173 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.174 Some observers argue that actual levels of Sino-Russian cooperation in the
Arctic are not as great as Chinese or Russian announcements about such cooperation might
suggest.175
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.176 One

Guy Taylor, “U.S. Reopens Consulate in Greenland Amid Race for Arctic Supremacy,” Washington Times, June 10,
2020.
171 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.
172 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.
173 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.
174 See, for example, Paul Goble, “Moscow Needs Beijing in the Arctic but Worries About China’s Expanding Role,”
Eurasia Daily Monitor, February 1, 2022.
175 See, for example, 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.
176 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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

40

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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 Chinese behavior
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 Chinese actions 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.177
U.S. and Allied Military Forces and Operations178
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 seven Arctic states other than
Russia (aka 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

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?
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.
177 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.
178 This section was prepared by Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade
Division.
Congressional Research Service

41

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

where we must be able to defend ourselves from threats coming from both places.”179 Parts of
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. Among
other actions, Russia established a new Arctic Joint Strategic Command at Severomorsk (the
home of the Russian navy’s Northern Fleet), 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.180
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.181 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

179 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
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.
180 Regarding Russian military presence and operations in the Arctic, see, for example, 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.
181 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.
Congressional Research Service

42

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

consumption.182 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.
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.183 All U.S. military services are conducting increased exercises
and training operations in the region, 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.184

182 See, for example, Hilde-Gunn Bye, “Russia Pays Considerable Attention to Improve Arctic Infrastructure, Says
Defence Minister,” High North News, April 14, 2021; Lyle Goldstein, “Washington Should Chill Out over Russia’s
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; 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.
183 See the following documents:
•
Department of Defense, Report to Congress, Department of Defense Arctic Strategy, June 2019, 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.
See also Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate staff, “Army Developing First Arctic Doctrine in More than 50 Years,”
U.S. Army, January 23, 2024.
184 See, for example, 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 (translation by Birgitte Annie Molid Martinussen), “Nordic Response: Over 20 000
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

43

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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
in certain Arctic exercises.185 NATO is conducting increased exercises in the region, some of
which have been large exercises involving thousands of personnel from multiple countries.
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.186 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.187
• 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.188
• 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.189

Soldiers From 13 Nations Will Practice Defending NATO's Northern Flank,” High North News, February 2 (updated
February 14), 2024; Sean Madden, “New York Air Guard Trains With Danish Special Forces In Greenland,” Air
National Guard, November 29, 2023; Geoff Ziezulewicz, “SEALs Operate in the Arctic During Polar Dagger,” Navy
Times, September 22, 2023; Astri Edvardsen, “American and Finnish Air Forces Train Together in the High North,”
High North News, August 23, 2023.
185 See, for example, 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.
186 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.
187 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.
188 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.
189 See, for example, Identifying Potential Gaps in U.S. Coast Guard Arctic Capabilities, Homeland Security
Operational Analysis Center (HSOAC), 2018, 100 pp.
Congressional Research Service

44

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

• 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 starting
to take actions to address the need for improved communications and improved
surveillance and reconnaissance in the Arctic.190
• 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 longer run.191
• 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.”192
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.”193 An August 2020 press report identifies Eielson Air Force
Base southeast of Fairbanks, Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks, and Clear Space Force Station south

190 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.
191 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.
192 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.
193 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.
Congressional Research Service

45

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

of Anderson (previously known as Clear Air Force Base) as locations where facilities have been
impacted by thawing permafrost.194
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.”195
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.”196
October 2022 Coast Guard Arctic Implementation Plan
In October 2023, the Coast Guard released an implementation plan for its 2019 Arctic strategy
document.197 The implementation plan includes 14 initiatives.198

194 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 21st Century,” Arctic Institute, October 27, 2020.
195 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.
196 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
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.
197 U.S. Coast Guard, Arctic Strategic Outlook Implementation Plan, October 2023, 25 pp.
198 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.
Congressional Research Service

46

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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.199
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.”200
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
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.”201
August 2018 Reestablishment of 2nd Fleet
In May 2018, the Navy announced that it would reestablish the 2nd 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 2nd 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.202

199 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.
200 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.
201 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.
202 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, “2nd
Fleet To Be Fully Operational in 2019, Sees Real Russian Threat,” Defense Daily, December 3, 2018; Sam LaGrone,
“U.S. 2nd 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 2nd Fleet Boundary Will Extend North to the Edge of Russian Waters,” USNI News,
August 24, 2018.
Congressional Research Service

47

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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.203 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.204 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.205 (Anchorage, in the southern part of Alaska’s mainland, was designated
a U.S. strategic seaport for supporting DOD operations in 2004.206) 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.”207

203 See, for example, 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; Scott Savitz and Abbie Tingsta, “The U.S. Military
Needs to Build Arctic Capabilities and Capacity,” Real Clear Defense, December 20, 2023; Unshin Lee Harpley,
“‘How We Train and How We Operate’ in the Arctic Can Get Better, Generals Say,” Air and Space Forces Magazine,
September 13, 2023; Alexander B. Gray, “NATO’s Northern Flank Has Too Many Weak Spots,” Foreign Policy,
August 7, 2023; William Mauldin and Alan Cullison, “America’s Military Trails Russia and China in Race for the
Melting Arctic,” Wall Street Journal, July 30, 2023; Theresa Hitchens, “Eyeing Russia and China, NORTHCOM Head
Frets over US Ability to Respond to Arctic Threats,” Breaking Defense, October 12, 2022; Greg Hadley, “Arctic
Hasn’t Gotten Enough in Past Pentagon Budgets, VanHerck Says. Will That Change in 2023?” Air & Space Forces
Magazine, March 25, 2022.
204 See, for example, Riley Rogerson, “Top US Northern Command Official Calls Arctic Military Resources
Insufficient at Senate Hearing,” Anchorage Daily News, March 23, 2023.
205 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.
206 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.
207 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.
Congressional Research Service

48

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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)
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).
Polar Icebreaking208
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.209
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
1976 and 1978, 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.210
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.

208 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.
209 The nine missions supported by polar ice operations are search and rescue; maritime safety; aids to navigation; ice
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.)
210 See CRS Report RL34391, Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (Polar Icebreaker) Program: Background and Issues
for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service

49

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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.211 Other observers
disagree with that perspective.212
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 envisages
procuring four or five new PSCs (i.e., heavy polar icebreakers), followed by the procurement of
up to four or five Arctic Security Cutters (ASCs, i.e., medium polar icebreakers). The Navy and
Coast Guard in 2020 estimated the total procurement costs of the first three PSCs in then-year
dollars as $1,038 million (i.e., about $1.0 billion) for the first ship, $794 million for the second
ship, and $841 million for the third ship, for a combined estimated cost of $2,673 million (i.e.,
about $2.7 billion).The first ship will cost more than the other two because it will incorporate
design costs for the class and be at the start of the production learning curve for the class. The
procurement of the first two PSCs is fully funded. The design and construction of the first PSC
has been delayed; it might be delivered to the Coast Guard no earlier than 2028. The Coast
Guard’s proposed FY2024 budget requests $170.0 million in continued procurement funding for
the PSC program.
As part of its FY2023 budget submission, the Coast Guard, in addition to requesting procurement
funding for the PSC program, also requested $125.0 million for procuring an existing
commercially available polar icebreaker that would be modified to become a Coast Guard polar
icebreaker. The ship would be used to help bridge the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaking capacity
until the new PSCs enter service, and augment the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaking capacity after
the new PSCs enter service. Congress, as part of its action on the Coast Guard’s FY2023 budget,
denied this funding request. As part of its FY2024 budget submission, the Coast Guard has again
requested $125.0 million for procuring an existing commercially available polar icebreaker.
Search and Rescue (SAR)213
Increasing sea and air traffic through Arctic waters has increased concerns regarding Arctic-area
SAR capabilities.214 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

211 See, for example, Mike Glenn, “U.S. Icebreaker Gap with Russia a Growing Concern as Arctic ‘Cold War’ Heats
Up,” Washington Times, September 23, 2021.
212 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.
213 This section was prepared by Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade
Division.
214 See, for example, Elías Thorsson, “Increased Arctic Shipping Brings Increased Risks,” Arctic Business Journal,
October 21, 2023.
Congressional Research Service

50

link to page 56 Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

of Utqiagvik, AK, which is nearly the same distance as from Boston, MA, to Miami, FL.”215 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.216 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,217 and in September
2023, a Bahamas-flagged cruise ship with 206 people on board ran aground in Alpefjord,
Greenland.218
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
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.219 The agreement divides the Arctic into SAR areas within which each party has primary
responsibility for conducting SAR operations. Figure 5 shows a map of the national areas of SAR
responsibility based on the geographic coordinates listed in the Annex to the agreement.

215 Coast Guard, Arctic Strategic Outlook, April 2019, p. 11.
216 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.
217 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.
218 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).
219 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.
Congressional Research Service

51

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 5. 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/.
Commercial Sea Transportation220
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.221 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

220 This section was prepared by John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
221 Extended daylight hours in the Arctic during the summer may also be an advantage.
Congressional Research Service

52

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

America could become less expensive relative to other emerging manufacturing centers in
Southeast Asia, such as India.222 Melting ice could potentially open up two trans-Arctic routes:223
• 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.224
• 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.225 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.226 Cargo ship transits have been
extremely rare but cruise vessel excursions and research vessels are more
common.
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

222 Presentation by Stephen Carmel, Senior Vice President, Maersk Line Ltd., Halifax International Security Forum,
Arctic Security: The New Great Game? November 21, 2009.
223 A third but more remote possibility is a route directly over the North Pole.
224 Traffic statistics available at https://arctic-lio.com/.
225 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.
226 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.
Congressional Research Service

53

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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.227
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.228 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.229 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
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.230
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

227 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.
228 Ocean Conservancy, https://oceanconservancy.org/protecting-the-arctic/take-the-pledge/.
229 “Arctic Unlikely to See Major Shipping Growth,” New Zealand Transport and Logistics Business Week, April 24,
2008.
230 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.
Congressional Research Service

54

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

the Arctic, however, these surveys and charts are out of date or not sufficiently accurate.231 To
remedy this problem, aviation reconnaissance of ice conditions and satellite images would need to
become readily available for ship operators.232 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.233 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.234 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
improvements for Arctic navigation in a 2013 report.235 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 1959.236

231 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.
232 Ice reporting that currently exists is intended for scientists not mariners.
233 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.
234 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.
235 U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System, U.S. Arctic Marine Transportation System: Overview and
Priorities for Action, 2013.
236 See http://www.imo.org/ for more information.
Congressional Research Service

55

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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, 2017.237 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
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.238 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.239

237 https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Polar-default.aspx.
238 For example, see Alaska State Legislature, HJR 19, Arctic Marine Safety Agreements; http://www.akleg.gov/basis/
Bill/Detail/30?Root=HJR%2019.
239 82 Federal Register 11935, February 27, 2017.
Congressional Research Service

56

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Oil, Gas, and Mineral Exploration240
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.241 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.242 The USGS stated that the “extensive Arctic
continental shelves may constitute the geographically largest unexplored prospective area for
petroleum remaining on Earth.”243 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).244 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.245 In terms of U.S. resources specifically, DOI’s Bureau of Ocean Energy
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).246

240 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.
241 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.
242 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.”
243 USGS 2008 Fact Sheet.
244 USGS 2008 Fact Sheet, p. 1.
245 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.
246 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,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

57

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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,247 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).248 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.249 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.250 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.251 While there were 450
active leases in the Chukchi Sea planning area at the end of 2015, as of January 2024 there were
none.252 In the Beaufort Sea, active leases dropped from 77 at the end of 2015 to 6 in January
2024.253 Despite these changes, recent discoveries onshore and in state waters on Alaska’s North
Slope have contributed to ongoing interest in the region.

“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).
247 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.
248 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.
249 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.
250 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.
251 BOEM, 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing: Proposed Final Program, November 2016, p. S-
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.
252 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.
253 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

58

link to page 72 Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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.254
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.255 For example, leasing is prohibited in the Bristol Bay area
of the North Aleutian Basin.256 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.257
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
ocean ridges, and commonly contain copper, gold, zinc, lead, barium, and silver.258
Ferromanganese crusts and nodules have been observed on the Arctic seabed.259

254 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.
255 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.”
256 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.”
257 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.
258 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).
259 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.
Congressional Research Service

59

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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 1980.260
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.261
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.262 According to BOEM,
hydrothermal vents offshore the western Alaskan Aleutian Islands may be a potential target for
certain marine minerals.263 Some Members of Congress have opposed deep-seabed mining, both
on the U.S. OCS and in areas beyond national jurisdiction,264 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.265
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
Mid-Ocean Ridge, known as Loki’s Castle, located in Norway’s EEZ.266 Massive sulfide deposits
have developed around the venting system.267 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.268 Shortly

260 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.
261 Gartman et al., Marine Minerals in Alaska, pp. 4-5.
262 BOEM, “Requests and Active Leases,” at https://www.boem.gov/marine-minerals/requests-and-active-leases.
263 Zoom briefing between CRS and BOEM Marine Mineral Program, March 7, 2024.
264 See in the 118th Congress H.R. 4537 and H.R. 4536.
265 See in the 118th Congress H.R. 7636.
266 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).
267 Ibid.
268 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,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

60

link to page 65 Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

thereafter, the European Parliament passed a resolution expressing its concerns about Norway’s
decision.269 Citing the potential ecological damage of seabed mining, the European Parliament
has supported an international moratorium on deep-seabed mining.270
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.271
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.272
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.273 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.274 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).
Extent of the Continental Margin275
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.”276
This area of the continental shelf, beyond the limits of the 200-nautical-mile EEZ, is known as the
extended continental shelf (ECS).277 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

2024, https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/norway-parliament-votes-favour-seabed-mining-expected-2024-
01-09/.
269 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.
270 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.
271 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.
272 ISA, “Exploration Contracts,” at https://www.isa.org.jm/exploration-contracts.
273 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.
274 UNCLOS, Articles 56 and 77.
275 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)).
276 See Strategic Objective 4.2 in White House, National Strategy for the Arctic Region, October 2022, p. 14.
277 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.
Congressional Research Service

61

link to page 67 Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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.278
On December 19, 2023, the U.S. Department of State announced the outer limits of the U.S. ECS
(Figure 6).279 The declared total U.S. ECS would be approximately 288,000 square nautical miles
(987,700 square kilometers),280 roughly 8% of the seafloor area beneath the U.S. EEZ.281 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.282 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.283
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.284 Under Article 76 of UNCLOS, a coastal country can file
a submission to the CLCS concerning the extent of its continental shelf.285 In addition, the
provisions set forth under Article 76 describe the geological and geophysical characteristics of the
seabed and subsoil that are used to delineate the outer limits of the ECS.286 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.”287

278 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/.
279 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/.
280 U.S. Department of State, U.S. ECS Executive Summary, p. 9.
281 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.
282 U.S. Department of State, U.S. ECS Executive Summary, pp. 9 and 15.
283 U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Project: Data Collection,” https://www.state.gov/data-
collection-us-ecs-project/.
284 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.
285 UNCLOS, Article 76, paragraph 8. Annex II of UNCLOS addresses the CLCS.
286 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/.
287 UNCLOS, Article 76, paragraph 8.
Congressional Research Service

62

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 6. 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 ful 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
(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.288 It remains unclear if the CLCS would consider a U.S.
submission in these circumstances.289 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

288 U.S. Department of State, U.S. ECS Executive Summary, p. 6.
289 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.
Congressional Research Service

63

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

to recognize new borders.”290 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.291 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.”292
In the Arctic Ocean, portions of the U.S. ECS are bounded by Canada to the east and Russia to
the west.293 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.”294
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).295 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.
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.296
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.297 The CLCS provided its first favorable recommendations to Norway in 2009, just over

290 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.
291 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.
292 U.S. Department of State, “Continental Shelf and Maritime Boundaries; Notice of Limits,” 88 Federal Register
88470, December 21, 2023.
293 U.S. Department of State, U.S. ECS Executive Summary, p. 15.
294 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.
295 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, 101st Cong., 2nd 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.
296 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”).
297 For example, Andrey Todorov, “Russia’s Arctic Shelf Bid and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

64

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

two years after Norway filed its submission for an ECS in the Arctic.298 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 2016.299 Denmark filed two
submissions in 2013 and 2014, and in 2019, Canada filed a submission to the CLCS.300 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.301 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 2001.302 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.303 The CLCS
found the Russian Federation’s 2001 submission to have insufficient scientific evidence.304 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.305 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
extended Russian continental shelf.306 The United States communicated no objections to the
CLCS regarding Russia’s 2015 revised submission and 2021 addenda.307 On February 6, 2023,

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/.
298 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.
299 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.
300 See United Nations, “Submissions to the CLCS.”
301 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.
302 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.
303 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.
304 Several other nations objected to Russia’s submission due to a lack of scientific evidence. Ibid.
305 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.
306 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.
307 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,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

65

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

the CLCS issued favorable recommendations to Russia regarding its submission related to the
Mendeleev Rise, Podvodnikov Basin, Lomonosov Ridge, and surrounding areas.308 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.309 Russia has since submitted additional evidence for the Gakkel Ridge.310 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.311
The delineation of ECSs in the Arctic Ocean could signal to non-Arctic states (e.g., China)312 that
existing and potential Arctic resources are under the legal jurisdiction of the five Arctic coastal
nations.313 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.
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,314 and on existing mineral
operations in the Arctic, producing gold, silver, zinc, lead, and construction aggregates.315 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

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).
308 CLCS, Recommendations to the Russian Federation in Respect to the Arctic Ocean, February 6, 2023, pp. i-63.
309 Ibid., p. 24.
310 United Nations, “Submissions to the CLCS.”
311 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.
312 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/).
313 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.
314 CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10943, The Willow Project: History and Litigation, by Adam Vann.
315 USGS Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2022, 2022, pp. 10-16, https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2022.
Congressional Research Service

66

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)316 and the central North Slope in the
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NRP-A), could be expanded by a warming Arctic.317
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.318 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
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.

316 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.
317 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.
318 See NOAA, “Arctic Change,” at https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic-zone/detect/land-road.shtml.
Congressional Research Service

67

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Oil Pollution and Pollution Response319
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.320 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.321 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.”322
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.323
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.324 During that incident, the uncontrolled well released
(over an 87-day period) approximately 200 million gallons of crude oil.325 The second-largest
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 1979.326

319 This section was prepared by Jonathan L. Ramseur, Specialist in Environmental Policy, Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
320 For further discussion of issues relating to oil spills in general, see CRS Report RL33705, Oil Spills: Background
and Governance.
321 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 12th Arctic Shipping Summit, Montreal, February 21-22,” Canadian Sailings, March 12, 2018, pp. 34-36.
322 Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Arctic Oil and Gas 2007, 2008.
323 For example, the Exxon Valdez spilled approximately 11 million gallons of oil, but its carrying capacity was
approximately 60 million gallons.
324 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).
325 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.
326 National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies of Science, Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and
Effects, 2003.
Congressional Research Service

68

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Until the 2010 Deepwater Horizon incident, the spill record for offshore platforms in U.S. federal
waters had shown improvement from prior years.327 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.”328 Similar conclusions were made in federal agency documents regarding deepwater
drilling in the Gulf of Mexico before the 2010 Deepwater Horizon event.329 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.330 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.331 According to a 2016 study, “oil spill science in ice-covered
waters is at an ad hoc level.”332 For example, information on the long-term effects of oil and its
environmental persistence within the Arctic is limited.333 In addition, the historical data for the
region do not provide reliable baselines to assess current environmental or ecosystem states,334
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.335

327 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.
328 National Research Council of the National Academies of Science, Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas
Activities on Alaska’s North Slope, 2003.
329 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.
330 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).
331 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).
332 Mawuli Afenyo, “A State-of-the-Art Review of Fate and Transport of Oil Spills in Open and Ice-Covered Water,”
Ocean Engineering, 2016.
333 NRC Report, 2014.
334 Ibid.
335 NRC Report, 2014, p. 58.
Congressional Research Service

69

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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.336 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.337 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.338 The study found that during the summer months (July-
October), open water oil recovery would not be “favorable” approximately 33% of the time.339 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.340
In the event of an oil spill, the Coast Guard has response authority in the coastal zone.341 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
spill.”342 The logistics in the Arctic were described as a “tyranny of distance” by the Vice
Commandant of the Coast Guard.343

336 World Wildlife Fund, Oil Spill: Response Challenges in Arctic Waters (2007).
337 Coastal Response Research Center, Opening the Arctic Seas: Envisioning Disasters and Framing Solutions (2009),
partnership between the NOAA and the University of New Hampshire.
338 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.
339 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.
340 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.
341 For more details, see CRS Report RL33705, Oil Spills: Background and Governance.
342 NRC Report, 2014.
343 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.
Congressional Research Service

70

link to page 61 Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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.344 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.345 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.346 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.347 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.348 A 2016 GAO Report provided an initial assessment of these
efforts.349 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.”350
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.351
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.352 Pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act (OPA),353
parties responsible for an oil spill may be liable for cleanup costs, natural resource damages, and
specific economic damages.354 OPA provided both limited defenses from liability and conditional
liability limits for cleanup costs and other eligible damages.355 The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
(OSLTF) provides an immediate source of funds for federal responses to oil spills and

344 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.
345 NRC Report, 2014.
346 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.
347 Government Accountability Office, Key Issues Related to Commercial Activity in the U.S. Arctic over the Next
Decade, GAO-14-299, 2014.
348 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.
349 Government Accountability Office, Arctic Strategy Is Underway, but Agency Could Better Assess How Its Actions
Mitigate Known Arctic Capability Gaps, GAO-16-453, 2016.
350 U.S. Coast Guard, Arctic Strategic Outlook, 2019, https://www.uscg.mil/Portals/0/Images/arctic/
Arctic_Strategic_Outlook_APR_2019.pdf.
351 See the section above titled “Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration.”
352 For more information on this framework, see CRS Report RL33705, Oil Spills: Background and Governance.
353 P.L. 101-380, primarily codified at 33 U.S.C. §2701 et seq.
354 33 U.S.C. §2702.
355 33 U.S.C. §2703 and §2704.
Congressional Research Service

71

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

compensation for certain damages.356 The OSLTF can be used if a responsible party’s liability
limit is reached, but the fund can only provide $1 billion per incident.357
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.358
The behavior of oil spills in cold and icy waters is not as well understood as oil spills in more
temperate climates.359 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.360 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.”361 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
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

356 33 U.S.C. §2712.
357 26 U.S.C. §9509.
358 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.
359 NRC Report, 2014.
360 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.
361 NRC Report, 2014.
Congressional Research Service

72

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

Prevention of Pollution from Ships (known as MARPOL).362 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.363 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 2016.364 A 2018 Coast Guard document
describes the agreement as “binding.”365 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.366
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.367 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.368
Fisheries369
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
ecosystems in the Arctic.370 In addition, ocean acidification is occurring as the increasing
concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere leads to greater absorption of CO2 by

362 See the above section titled “Regulation of Arctic Shipping.”
363 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).
364 Arctic Council, Status of ratification of Agreements negotiated under the auspices of the Arctic Council, 2016.
365 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.
366 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.
367 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.
368 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/.
369 This section was prepared by Anthony R. Marshak, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy.
370 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.
Congressional Research Service

73

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

the global ocean.371 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,372 their prey, and the
species that support marine fisheries (e.g., Arctic cod; juvenile stages of red king crab and tanner
crab).373
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.374
Approximately 15% of the world’s marine fisheries are caught in the Subarctic and Arctic.375 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.376 Contrastingly, the interior Arctic shelves and the Central Arctic Ocean
have generally supported small, important subsistence catches.377 The southern inflow shelves are
also the most likely locations for species expansions depending on available habitat.378 For
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

371 For more information about ocean acidification, see CRS Report R47300, Ocean Acidification: Frequently Asked
Questions, by Caitlin Keating-Bitonti and Eva Lipiec.
372 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.
373 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.
374 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.”
375 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.”
376 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/.
377 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.”
378 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,
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.”
Congressional Research Service

74

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

groundfish species.379 These latitudinal shifts are likely associated with regional warming.380
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).381
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.382 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.383 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.384
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).385 The 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.386 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.387 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.388 The
NPFMC developed a discussion paper that examines exploratory fishing undertaken by regional
fishery management organizations and potential application of these efforts to the Arctic
Ocean.389 The FMP does not regulate subsistence or recreational fisheries in the Arctic, which are

379 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.”
380 Ibid.
381 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.
382 Mueter, 2022, “Arctic Fisheries in a Changing Climate.”
383 Ibid.
384 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.
385 74 Federal Register 56734-56746, November 3, 2009.
386 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.”
387 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.
388 NPFMC, 2009, “Fishery Management Plan for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area,” p. 41.
389 Steve MacLean, Exploratory Fishing in Global Regional Fishery Management Organizations, North Pacific Fishery
Management Council, Anchorage, AK, February 2018.
Congressional Research Service

75

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

generally for small local use salmonid species and some upstream freshwater finfish species
managed by the State of Alaska.390
International cooperation is necessary to manage Arctic resources because fish stocks are shared
to some degree among the five Arctic coastal states.391 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.392
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.393 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.394 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.395
The declaration was followed by negotiations among officials from the five Arctic coastal states,
four major fishing nations,396 and the European Union.397 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.398
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

390 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.
391 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.
392 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.
393 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.
394 See https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/rulesneg_e/fish_e/2015_oslo_declaration.pdf.
395 Ibid.
396 The four major fishing nations include Iceland, Japan, South Korea, and the People’s Republic of China.
397 The agreement includes Arctic indigenous peoples as participants in meetings and as a source of scientific
information and local knowledge.
398 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.
Congressional Research Service

76

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

marine ecosystem.399 The agreement is seen by experts as the first step toward establishing one or
more regional fisheries management organizations for the Arctic Ocean.400 On June 25, 2021, the
agreement entered into force with the ratification of all 10 signatories.401
Currently, there is no commercial fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean, for which a 16-year
moratorium is in place since June 2021.402 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.403 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.404 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.405
Protected Species406
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).407 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).408
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
and is protected under MMPA due to its classification as a marine mammal.409 Declining sea ice
levels in the Arctic threaten polar bear populations. Polar bears use sea ice as a platform to hunt

399 Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean, Article 4.
400 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.
401 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/.
402 Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean, Article 13.
403 Some experts debate whether existing fisheries resources in the Central Arctic Ocean could sustain a fishery.
Mueter, 2022, “Arctic Fisheries in a Changing Climate.”
404 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.
405 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.
406 This section was prepared by Pervaze A. Sheikh, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy.
407 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.
408 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).
409 There are 19 populations of polar bears inhabiting the Arctic.
Congressional Research Service

77

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

for seals and other prey, travel to maternal denning areas, and seek mates, among other things.410
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.411
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.412 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.413 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
FWS or NMFS.414 This consultation may result in in the issuance of a biological opinion, which

410 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Polar Bears, https://www.fws.gov/alaska/pages/marine-mammals/polar-bear.
411 Richard L. Thoman et al., Arctic Report Card 2020, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, December
2020.
412 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).
413 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.
414 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.
Congressional Research Service

78

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

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.415 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.416 Similarly the Navy may need to consult with NMFS before undertaking military activity
that may affect the arctic ringed seal (Phoca hispida hispida).417 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.418
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
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10943, The Willow Project: History and Litigation, by Adam Vann 419

415 Incidental taking is defined at 50 C.F.R. 17.3 as it related to the ESA.
416 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.
417 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.
418 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.
419 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.
Congressional Research Service

79

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress

CRS Report RL33705, Oil Spills: Background and Governance, by Jonathan L. Ramseur

Author Information

Ronald O'Rourke, Coordinator
Anthony R. Marshak
Specialist in Naval Affairs
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Laura B. Comay
Jonathan L. Ramseur
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Specialist in Environmental Policy

John Frittelli
Lexie Ryan
Specialist in Transportation Policy
Analyst in Energy Policy

Emma Kaboli
Pervaze A. Sheikh
Analyst in Energy Policy
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.

Congressional Research Service
R41153 · VERSION 203 · UPDATED
80

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Mar. 19, 2024

HTML · PDF

Jan. 18, 2024

HTML · PDF

Oct. 11, 2023

HTML · PDF

Jul. 5, 2023

HTML · PDF

Mar. 24, 2022

HTML · PDF

Oct. 12, 2021

HTML · PDF

Sep. 23, 2021

HTML · PDF

Sep. 7, 2021

HTML · PDF

Aug. 4, 2021

HTML · PDF

Jul. 16, 2021

HTML · PDF

May. 17, 2021

HTML · PDF

Feb. 1, 2021

HTML · PDF

Jan. 6, 2021

HTML · PDF

Dec. 15, 2020

HTML · PDF

Nov. 4, 2020

HTML · PDF

Sep. 10, 2020

HTML · PDF

Aug. 20, 2020

HTML · PDF

Aug. 4, 2020

HTML · PDF

Jun. 18, 2020

HTML · PDF

May. 22, 2020

HTML · PDF

Apr. 28, 2020

HTML · PDF